IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (308)

1. CR-3963-2023 Labh Singh (since deceased) through legal representatives ....Petitioner Versus Manmohan Singh and another ....Respondents

2. CR-3972-2023 Labh Singh (since deceased) through legal representatives ....Petitioner Versus Manmohan Singh and another ....Respondents

3. FAO-3986-2023 (O&M)

Labh Singh (since deceased) through legal representatives ....Appellant Versus Manmohan Singh and another ....Respondents Date of decision: - 11.11.2025 CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Ivan Singh Khosa, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This order would dispose of above-said three cases. First case being CR-3963-2023 tilted as “Labh Singh (since deceased) through legal representatives Vs. Manmohan Singh and another”, in which, challenge is made to the order dated 10.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the 1^st Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.137 of 2023 by which the application filed by respondent No.1 under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been allowed. The second petition is Civil Revision No.3972 of 2023 titled as “Labh Singh (since deceased) through legal representatives Vs. Manmohan Singh and another” in which the challenge has been made to the order dated 10.03.2023 (Annexure P- 1) passed by the 1^st Appellate Court vide which the application filed by the petitioner for mesne profits has been dismissed. Third case is FAO No.3986 of 2023 titled as “Labh Singh (since deceased) through legal representatives Vs. Manmohan Singh and another”, in which the challenge is to the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide which application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed.

2. It has been jointly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1 that Labh Singh had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the joint owner in possession along with defendant No.2/Inderjit Kaur. It is further submitted that the said suit was decreed and the counter-claim filed by defendant No.1 was dismissed. It is further submitted that against the said order, an appeal was filed by respondent No.1, in which, vide order dated

10.03.2023, the interim order was passed in favour of respondent No.1 and vide an order of even date i.e. 10.03.2023, an application for mesne profits filed by the petitioner/plaintiff-Labh Singh was dismissed. It is stated that third order was passed on 10.03.2023 vide which the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by respondent No.1- Manmohan Singh was allowed. It is further stated that against the said three orders, the present three cases have been filed. It has been pointed out that on 17.07.2023, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order in Civil Revision No.3963 of 2023: -

“CR-3963-2023 By way of present revision petition, the petitioner (plaintiff)

has challenged the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana in its appellate jurisdiction, whereby, operation of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner (plaintiff) has been stayed.

Counsel for the petitioner points out that there is further stay of the injunction order passed against the respondents (defendants) while decreeing the suit by learned trial Court, which is in derogation to the law laid down by the Apex Court saying that no injunction can be granted against the injunction passed by the Court and thus relies upon Mohd Shakeel vs. Mohd Islam, (Delhi) 2023 (1) RCR (Civil) 702. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that he would confine his submission, if the impugned order is modified to the extent of granting stay over the alienation against the plaintiff and also not to create a third party rights/charge.

Notice of motion for 21.11.2023.

Till th