IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

125-1 Reserved on : 15.01.2026 Pronounced on : 11.03.2026 Uploaded on : 11.03.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes Rakesh Pal Kaushik and others ...... Petitioners versus Brij Bhushan and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. D.P. Kaushik, petitioner No.2 in person (V.C.).

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner No.2, who appeared in person on 15.01.2026 through V.C. sought time to submit written arguments. He was granted time. He, however, has failed to submit any written arguments till date.

2. The present petition is directed against order dated 19.12.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) SAS Nagar (Mohali) whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 144 CPC has been dismissed.

3. Petitioner is a plaintiff in a suit for separate possession by way of partition. Application was filed under Section 144 CPC wherein the plaintiff prayed as under:-

“In view of the above facts and circumstances this hon'ble Court may in restitution and variation of the decree appearing at Pages 103-105 of Replication of the plaintiffs to the written statement of Defendant Nos. 1-3 kindly be pleased to pass in favour of the applicant and against Defendant Nos.

1-3 a money decree in the sum of eight crore rupees.”

4. The pleadings raised in the application are as under:-

“2. That a look at the replications filed by the Plaintiffs would show that a judgment deserved to be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against Defendant Nos. 1-3 in respect of all the reliefs prayed for in the plaint on the admissions of all the contesting defendants under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC if the contesting defendants had not set up the proposition that on account of four other properties being joint between the parties to the suit, partition of the suit property without inclusion of the other four properties for partition is not permissible. This proposition of the contesting defendants/non-applicants (that on account of four other properties being joint between the parties to the suit, partition of the suit property without inclusion of the other four properties for partition is not permissible) was false and fraudulent, set up by concealing from both the written statements the previous pieces of litigation showing lack of jointness in respect of those four properties.

3. That the plaintiffs like Defendants Nos. 1-3 and 9-10 are merely legal representatives of the original owners of the suit property. The Defendant Nos. 1-3 fraudulently and repetitively and too in collusion with Defendant Nos. 9-10 set up themselves as joint with the plaintiffs for four other properties.

4. That if the four properties or any of them was joint with the contesting defendants, the Defendant Nos. 1-3 ought to have sought partition in their first suit against the father of the appliants/plaintiffs. But that would have been contrary to the case set up by them in that suit. The Defendant Nos. 1-3 did not set up any jointness in their second suit the suit for possession as well.

5. That in the foregoing scenario and in the event of Defendant Nos. 1-3 not filing a written surrejoinder, a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 deserves to be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the Defendant Nos. 1-3 with the variation that the entire suit property including the share of the fraudulently satisfied defendants (Defendant Nos. 9-10) has become liable to be partitioned amongst all the otherwise eligible parties other than Defendant Nos. 9-10 in proportion to their so enhanced respective shares.

6. That for repetitively and fraudulently setting up four properties as joint contrary to the findings of the pieces of litigation concealed by the contesting defendants, the decree of possession obtained by Defendant Nos. 1-3 needs to be varied for restitution under Section 144 of CPC.

7. The Plaintiff No. 1 spent an amount of six