C.R NO. 2075 OF 2012 (O & M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

C.R NO. 2075 OF 2012 (O & M)

DECIDED ON : 02.04.2012

Anu

...Petitioner

versus

Grace Masih

....Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI

Present :

Mr. Rahul Bhargav, Advocate.

K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)

Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated

22.02.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by Smt. Gurmeet Kaur,

Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, vide which appeal preferred

by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 19.05.2011

passed by Shri R. S. Bajwa, Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kapurthala, was dismissed.

Briefly stated, the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for

permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking the

possession of portion of house in dispute by force and methods

other than the process of law. It is alleged that plaintiff and

defendant are close relatives. The defendant is the aunt of

plaintiff. The plot over which the house in dispute is constructed

C.R NO. 2075 OF 2012 (O & M)

-2-

is in possession of the plaintiff and the defendant since long.

Plaintiff and defendnat contributed funds for raising double storey

house which is in dispute. After construction of the house, the

plaintiff has taken the possession at the ground floor and the

defendnat took the possession over first floor. The plaintiff has

been residing on the ground floor along with her family. The

defendant is trying to dispossess her by force. Hence the present

suit.

The defendant filed written statement admitting the

relationship but denied the other contents of the plaint. It is

pleaded that defendant alone is the exclusive owner of the plot

which was purchased by her vide Agreement dated 06.03.2009.

The defendant has raised construction comprising of ground floor,

first floor. The defendant is residing abroad and while going

there, she requested her sister to look after the house. Her sister

is the mother of plaintiff. The plaintiff is unlawfully and illegally in

possession of the portion of house in dispute. It is denied that the

construction was raised by the parties.

Along with the main suit, an application under Order

39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed.

Learned trial Court , after hearing both the sides,

dismissed the application vide order dated 19.05.2011. The

plaintiff-petitioner challenged the said order by filing appeal

before the District Judge, Kapurthala, which was entrusted to the

Court of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, Additional District Judge,

C.R NO. 2075 OF 2012 (O & M)

-3-

Kapurthala and vide order dated 22.02.2012, the said appeal was

dismissed.

Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 19.05.2011

passed by Shri R. S. Bajwa, Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kapurthala and order dated 22.02.2012 passed by Smt.Gurmeet

Kaur, Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, the plaintiff-petitioner

has preferred the present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

possession of the plaintiff over the suit property has been

admitted. So both the Courts below have committed illegality by

not allowing the injunction. Mere agreement in favour of

defendant does not clothe her with any legal right. So, prayer has

been made for grant of injunction.

I have carefully considered the said submissions but

do not find any force in the same.

It is settled law that plaintiff has to make out a prima

facie case for grant of injunction. There is no documentary

evidence in favour of the plaintiff. The case of defendant is that

she has constructed the house and requested her sister ,who

happens to be the mother of plaintiff, to look after the house. In

these circumstances, there is no prima facie case in favour of the

plaintiff. Both the Courts below have rightly disallowed the

application for injunction. There is no documentary evidence in

respect of title of the plaintiff in