The central legal point established is the requirement of threat perception and the civil nature of the dispute in determining the validity of a petition.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for issuance of a direction to respondents No.1 to 5 not to harass the petitioner at the instance of respondents No.6 to 9, under the pressure of respondent No.10, who is presently the Advisor to the Chief Minister of Punjab as they are threatening and pressurizing the petitioner to withdraw a civil suit titled as 'Sukhwinder Singh vs Kartar Singh and others'.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has filed a civil suit No.11015 of 2019 titled as Sukhwinder Singh vs Kartar Singh and others in which sons and grandsons of Kartar Singh are the defendants along with Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA), Ludhiana and Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (PUDA), Mohali, impleaded as defendants No.19 and 20. It is further argued that in the said suit, the petitioner is claiming that he has 1/4th share of the estate of deceased Banta Singh situated in village Daad, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and despite the fact that the petitioner is owner in possession to the extent of 1/4th share in the land, the private defendants i.e. Kartar Singh, sons and grandsons, in the said suit are not acknowledging the claiming of the petitioner.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per the plaint (Annexure P1) not only he is claiming 1/4th share but also challenging the mutation entered on the basis of the natural succession regarding the estate of Banta Singh to be declared null and void as the same is against the last Will of Banta Singh dated 05.09.1992. It is also submitted that as per the mutation, some of the land fell to the share of Gurcharan Kaur @ Charan Kaur, the petitioner has also challenged some of the sale deeds executed by her in favour of the other defendants.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that even the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2001 passed on the basis of the compromise in the civil suit No.666 dated 15.12.1992 titled as 'Gurcharan Kaur vs Kartar Singh' is also sought to be declared as null and void as a consequential prayer in the said suit. It is further submitted that after filing of the suit, Kartar Singh and others under the influence of respondent No.10 - Bharat Inder Singh Chahal, Advisor to the Chief Minister of Punjab, are putting pressure on the petitioner to withdraw the suit. It is also argued that the daughter of Kartar Singh is married to son of respondent No.10 - Bharat Inder Singh Chahal and therefore, he is putting pressure on the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has, thus prayed that he may be provided security to prosecute his case.

5. On 30.01.2020, counsel for the State was directed to seek instructions in this regard.

6. Counsel for the State, on instructions from Jashandeep Singh Gill, A.C.P. Ludhiana and the SHO Jagdeep Singh, P.S. Sadar, Ludhiana, has refuted the claim of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the civil suit filed by the petitioner neither respondent No.10 - Bharat Inder Singh Chahal nor his son are party as they have no interest in the litigation inter se the petitioner - Sukhwinder Singh and Kartar Singh and his family. It is also argued that before filing of this petition, the petitioner has neither filed any complaint before the police authorities nor with any other authority that he has any threat perception at the instance of the private respondents and, therefore, this petition is totally misconceived.

7. Counsel for the State has further argued that the entire petition is fake as no date, time or month has been given, when such threat was given by any of the private respondents including respondent No.10. It is lastly, argued by counsel for the State that as per the order dated 27.12.2019, relied upon by the petitioner itself as Annexure P-3, the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana has observed as under:-