IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(1)

CR-375-2023 (O&M)

Reserved on: 03.05.2023

Date of pronouncement: 09.05.2023

Rakesh Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

Suresh Kumar

...Respondent

(2)

CR-340-2023 (O&M)

Rakesh Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

Suresh Kumar

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

H.S. MADAAN

, J.

By this judgment, I intend to dispose of above mentioned

revision petitions having almost identical facts.

2.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner Rakesh

Kumar and his brother Suresh Kumar respondent are co-owners of two

parcels of land, first measuring 65-K-3M, second having an area of

SUMIT KUMAR

2023.05.15 14:58

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

37K-13M adjoining to each other situated at Village Sidhrawali, Tehsil

Manesar, District Gurugram; petitioner Rakesh Kumar had filed two

suits seeking partition of the said parcels of land; civil suit bearing

No.85 of 2017 with respect to 65K-3M and civil suit No.86 of 2017

regarding 37K-13M.

3.

On getting notice, defendant Suresh Kumar had appeared

and filed written statement cum counter claim contending that all the

joint property should be included in the same suit and the plaintiff had

intentionally filed two separate suits regarding the joint property, in

that way, suit is bad for partly partition. The defendant contended that

besides the suit property of the main suit, the land measuring 37K-13M

was also joint property of the parties to the suit where a petrol pump,

service station and weighment bridge (dharamkanta) are installed in the

land comprised in rectangle No.5, killa No.22/2/2/2, 21/3/2/2/2 and

rectangle No.14, killa No.2. The land comprised in rectangle No.5,

killa No.18/2/2/1, rectangle No.14, killa No.3 is lying vacant. An old

go-down is there in rectangle No.5 killa No.23 whereas a double

storied house is constructed in rectangle No.5, killa No.23 and some

portion of the said killa is lying vacant. The land comprised in

rectangle No.5, killa No.15/1, 16/2, 17/1, 24 and 25/1 is lying vacant,

though CLU with regard to the same has been obtained and a go-down

has already been constructed in the area having rectangle No.14 killa

No.4, 5/1, 6/2, 7 and 14. The construction of go-down was raised by

obtaining loan from the bank by mortgaging the suit land. The

SUMIT KUMAR

2023.05.15 14:58

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

construction is not yet complete. The plaintiff had authorized the

defendant to operate the loan account and loan amount has been paid

by the defendant. He has invested maximum amount in obtaining CLU,

paying requisite fee etc. The plaintiff did not pay his half share in

outstanding dues, therefore, the defendant has filed a suit for recovery

against him. In para No.9 of the written statement, the defendant had

suggested the mode of partition of joint property. In the counter claim

filed by him, the defendant had sought partition of the entire joint land.

4.

The plaintiff filed replication to the counter claim

admitting that another chunk of land is also there which is a joint

property of the parties. He denied that the defendant has been running

petrol pump, service station and weighment bridge. The plaintiff stated

that the mode of partition suggested by the defendant is not acceptable

to him.

5.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were

framed on 06.08.2018:-

SUMIT KUMAR

2023.05.15 14:58

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

6.

Similarly in the other suit with regard to partition of land

measuring 37K-13M filed by plaintiff Suresh Kumar against Rakesh

Kumar bearing No.85 of 2017, on getting notice, defendant Rakesh

Kumar had appeared and filed written statement cum counter claim

almost on the same lines as in the other suit bearing No.86 of 2017.

Issues in that suit were also framed. However, both the suits were

consolidated and after completion of