1. Mst. Barto Devi filed a Suit against Gouri, her brother, impleading Nikki and Kamla Devi as Proforma Defendants seeking declaration that land comprised in Khewat Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of Village Padal of Tehsil Hiranagar, was the joint property of the parties to the Suit and Gouri had no right to transfer it by any mode including Sale, Gift, Mortgage, Lease or Exchange etc.

2. Along with the Suit, an application seeking interim directions against the defendant too was filed.

3. Gouri contested the Suit pleading, inter alia, that land comprised in Khasra No. 198/7 min falling in Khewat No.2, was his self acquired property and Mst. Barto Devi had neither any right therein nor was she entitled to seek injunctive directions against him. Copy of Decree dated 06.11.69 of the Civil Court of Munsiff, Hiranagar, evidencing Gouri to have acquired land comprised in Khasra No. 198/7min in terms of the Decree, was also placed on records.

4. Both Mst. Barto Devi and Mr. Gouri died during the pendency of the suit. They have been substituted by their legal representatives.

5. Finding that the property in dispute was the joint property of the parties and there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, the trial Court passed an order restraining defendant- Gouri from raising construction on the Suit land till the final disposal of the Suit.

6. Finding no merit in the defendant's Appeal against the order, the Appellate Court dismissed Gouri's Appeal vide its Order of September 27, 2007.

7. Dealing with the defendant's plea regarding his exclusive ownership and possession over land measuring 14 Kanals 7 Marias comprised in Khasra No. 198/7 min of Village Padal, it was found by the two Courts that in view of the provisions of Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act, the defendant could not claim any superior right in the property.

8. In applying the provisions of Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Courts proceeded on the premise that the Decree relied upon by the defendant was a Decree of Redemption of Mortgage which would not vest ownership right in defendant No.1 to claim absolute and exclusive right of enjoyment of land com­prised in Khasra No.198/7 min.

9. Questioning the orders of the trial Court and the Appellate Court on plaintiff's application under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petition­ers-defendants have invoked the Revisional jurisdiction of this Court seeking setting aside of the orders and dismissal of respondents' application in so far as it seeks restraint against the petitioners to raise construction on the land comprised in Khasra No. 198/7 min, during the pendency of the Suit.

10. Sri D.C. Raina, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petitioners' Revision Petition urging that in view of the amended provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Svt. 1977, the petitioners' Revision Petition was not maintainable as the High Court may not vary or reverse any order made in the course of a Suit or other proceedings, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would finally dispose of the Suit or other proceedings, which was not the situation in the present case, in that, even if the Revision had to be allowed, it would not finally dispose of the Suit.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the bar enacted by Section 115 of the Code prohibiting interference in the orders passed in the course of the Suit or other proceedings which do not result in final disposal of the suit or proceedings, exercise of power of superintendence too may be not warranted, for such a course would render the provisions of Section 115 of the Code nugatory.

12. On merits of the case, learned counsel would say that the Decree relied upon by the petitioners, the successors-in-interest of defendant No.1, being a Redemption Decree, the orders passed by the Courts below may not warrant interf

Click Here to Read the rest of this document