Case Summary

This is a revision petition filed by Vineet Kumar (petitioner/plaintiff) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenges an appellate order dated 07.08.2025 by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, which reversed a trial court injunction granted to the petitioner on 01.04.2025. (!) (!) (!) The High Court dismissed the petition on 19.09.2025, upholding the appellate order. (!) (!)

Parties Involved

• Petitioner/Plaintiff: Vineet Kumar, claiming to be a co-sharer in joint possession of the suit land. (!) (!)
• Respondents/Defendants:
• Respondents 1 and 2: M/s TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and others (caveators). (!) (!)
• Defendant No. 4: Obtained license for group housing on the suit land and adjoining areas. (!)
• Defendant No. 5: Allegedly colluded with Defendant No. 4. (!) (!)
• Defendants 2 and 3: Revenue authorities (e.g., Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rai) involved in partition proceedings. (!) (!)
• Representation: Petitioner represented by Senior Advocate Vijay Kumar Jindal and others; Respondents 1-2 by Munish Gupta and Akash Mehta. (!) (!)

Factual Background

The plaintiffs (including petitioner) and Defendant No. 4 are recorded as co-sharers of the suit land per Jamabandi 2014-15, classified as "Chahi" (irrigated agricultural land). (!) However, Defendant No. 4 obtained a license in 2006 (No. 839) from Haryana's Town and Country Planning Department for a group housing colony on the suit land and adjoining plots, and an occupation certificate in 2017. (!) (!) Allegedly, Defendants 4 and 5 procured plaintiffs' signatures fraudulently for site plans and sold/carved plots without partition. (!) Plaintiffs learned of this 8-9 months before filing suit. (!) Partition proceedings were initiated before revenue courts (Defendants 2-3), resulting in Mutation No. 7641 on 01.10.2024, allotting shares; plaintiffs participated but lost objections after spot inspection. (!) (!) (!) (!)

Plaintiff's Claims and Injunction Application

Plaintiffs filed a civil suit alleging fraud, lack of jurisdiction in revenue court (land allegedly "Gair Mumkin" post-license, losing agricultural character), and sought injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1-2 CPC to stop partition, interference with possession, or third-party rights creation. (!) (!) They argued revenue court exceeded jurisdiction despite their participation, as consent cannot confer jurisdiction. (!)

Defendants' Defenses

• Land was "Chahi" in revenue records at partition time, so revenue court had jurisdiction. (!) (!)
• Plaintiffs fully participated (appeared, filed objections to Naksha-Kh, pursued merits) without raising jurisdiction issue, estopping them now. (!) (!) (!)
• Partition finalized post-spot inspection; plaintiffs in possession of their allotted share (near canal), defendants developing theirs. (!) (!) (!)
• Suit barred by limitation, Section 41 Specific Relief Act, Order II Rule 2 CPC; misrepresentation of facts. (!) (!)

Trial Court Order (01.04.2025)

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, partly allowed injunction: restrained defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' possession and Defendant No. 4 from creating third-party rights (e.g., plot allotments, construction) on suit land. (!)

Appellate Court Order (07.08.2025)

Additional District Judge, Sonepat, allowed appeal by Defendants 4-5, set aside trial injunction, finding no prima facie case due to plaintiffs' participation estopping jurisdiction challenge and finalized partition. (!) (!) (!)

High Court Proceedings and Arguments

• Petitioner's Arguments: Appellate court ignored that consent/participation cannot confer jurisdiction on revenue court for non-agricultural ("Gair Mumkin") land; license (2006) and occupation certificate (2017) proved change in character pre-partition; irreparable injury from third-party rights/construction. Trial court correctly found prima facie case. (!) (!) (!)
• Respondents' Arguments: Appellate findings correct; no jurisdiction challenge raised earlier; plaintiffs estopped. (!)

High Court's Reasoning and Decision

• Plaintiffs' core plea (land lost agricultural character) unsupported: License No. 839/2006 showed intent but not conversion; 2017 occupation certificate unrelated (covered other licenses from 2004-2005, not suit land). (!) (!)
• Trial court misled by irrelevant certificate, constituting misrepresentation; injunction requires clean hands. (!) (!)
• Revenue court acted on spot inspection, finding land partitionable as "Chahi"; plaintiffs' participation without jurisdiction objection bars collateral attack. (!) (!)
• No prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury proven. Petition dismissed; ancillary applications closed. (!) (!)

Key Legal Principles Applied

• Jurisdiction: Participation/consent/waiver cannot vest jurisdiction in an incompetent court/tribunal. (!)
• Injunction (Order XXXIX Rules 1-2 CPC): Requires prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience; equitable remedy demands clean hands—no misrepresentation. (!) (!)
• Estoppel/Acquiescence: Full participation in proceedings without raising jurisdiction estops later challenge. (!)
• Supervisory Jurisdiction (Article 227): High Court interferes only for patent errors or jurisdictional excess; none found. (!) (!)

This judgment emphasizes strict proof for land character change and consequences of procedural participation. (!) (!)