C.R No.3707 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3707 of 2009 Date of Decision: 04.02.2010. Harish Malik .……Petitioner Versus Satnam Singh ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Majithia, Advocate for the respondent. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is revision petition by defendant-Harish Malik under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 15.03.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar thereby allowing application for temporary injuction moved by respondent-plaintiff Satnam Singh under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C) and restraining the defendant-petitioner from raising any sort of claim with regard to the suit property till disposal of the suit. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate judgment dated 10.03.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar whereby appeal preferred by the defendant against order (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court has been dismissed. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that he had purchased suit land measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas from its previous owner Gurmukh C.R No.3707 of 2009 -2- Singh vide registered sale deed dated 01.04.2002. Gurmukh Singh also delivered physical possession of the suit land to the plaintiff at the time of sale deed. The defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit property, but the defendant by claiming himself to be owner of the suit property has been harassing the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising any sort of claim over the suit property. Temporary injunction to the same effect was claimed by the plaintiff by moving separate application for the purpose which has been allowed by the trial Court as affirmed in appeal by the appellate Court. The case of the defendant is that he is owner in possession of the suit property as proprietor of M/s National Iron Scrap Company, having purchased it from Gopal Krishan and Parkash Chand. The defendant alleged that he never exchanged the suit property with property of Gurmukh Singh and mutation of exchange in favour of Gurmukh Singh regarding exchange of suit property was obtained by Gurmukh Singh in collusion with revenue official. Averments of the plaintiff were controverted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent had admittedly sold the suit land of one Malhar Singh in the year 2002 i.e 3 years before filing of the suit which was instituted on 21.10.2005 and consequently, the plaintiff-respondent has no locus standi to file the suit, having no right, title or interest in the suit property. C.R No.3707 of 2009 -3- Learned counsel for the respondent while admitting that the respondent had sold the suit property to Malhar Singh in the year 2002, contended that mutation of exchange of the suit land was sanctioned in favour of Gurmukh Singh in the year 1995 and on the basis of revenue entries, plaintiff purchased the suit land from Gurmukh Singh vide sale deed dated 01.04.2002 and the suit was instituted on 21.10.2005 and till then for 10 years after the sanction of mutation or even till today, the defendant-petitioner has not filed any suit to challenge the mutation of exchange. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The impugned orders of the Courts below are patently illegal and unsustainable. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable because the plaintiff admittedly has no right, title or interest in the suit property as he had sold the same 3 years before filing of the suit and, therefore, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. Moreover, the plaintiff has not sought any declaration in his own favour nor he has sought any relief regarding any right of himself in the suit property. On the other hand, the plaintiff has filed the suit for restraining the defendant from raising any claim to the suit property. Such a suit for negative relief, to my mind, is not maintainable at all. In addition to the aforesaid, the plaintiff has no prima facie case or balance of convenience nor the plaintiff would suffer any loss or injury much less irreparable one if the temporary injunction asked for is not granted because the plaintiff himself has no right, title or interest in the suit property. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant C.R No.3707 of 2009 -4- revision petition is allowed and order (Annexure P-1) dated 15.03.2007 passed by the trial Court and appellate judgment (Annexure P-2) dated 10.03.2009 passed by the appellate Court are set aside and application filed by the plaintiff-respondent for temporary injunction stands dismissed. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 04.02.2010 A. Kaundal