Civil Revision No. 6162 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6162 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.10.2009 Gurmit Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Surjit Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Ajaib Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 25004-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant-petitioners are exempted from filing certified copies of Annexures P-3 to P-6. CR No. 6162 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.4.2009 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the application moved by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit stands rejected. The plaintiff/petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, employees and attorney or anybody else claiming through defendants, from excavating or taking the earth from the land mentioned in the head-note of the plaint, for manufacturing of bricks or changing the nature of the said land in any manner whatsoever. Civil Revision No. 6162 of 2009 (O&M) -2- The plaintiffs claimed that plaintiffs are the real brothers and they are sons of Nachhattar Singh son of Marru Singh, whereas defendants No. 1 to 3 are sons of Baldev Singh son of Marru Singh. The property in dispute was claimed to be joint property of the plaintiffs and defendants being ancestral property. It was also the case of the plaintiffs, that Marru Singh son of Chotta Singh being karta of the family was shown as the owner in ownership column of jamabandi for the year 2006-07, whereas plaintiffs along with defendants No. 1 to 3 were in actual physical possession of the land in dispute. It was claimed, that Marru Singh karta was not in a fit state of mind, so defendants No. 1 to 3 are in cultivating possession of the land belong to him, whereas defendant No. 4 has taken the land on lease from Marru Singh and is using for manufacturing of bricks illegally. The suit was contested, wherein plea was raised, that the property is not joint. The application was also opposed on the plea, that plaintiff/petitioners have challenged the lease deed, but Marru Singh has not been impleaded as a party to the suit. Furthermore, that the lease deed was executed on 4.9.2002 and the purpose of lease was running of brick-kiln, whereas the suit was filed on 7.11.2008 i.e. after a period of six years. The learned Courts below found that the lease amount was substantial, which was for the benefit of the family and, therefore, the learned Courts held that no prima facie case is made out and furthermore the suit as framed was not competent and, therefore, declined the application for injunction moved by the plaintiff/petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned Civil Revision No. 6162 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Courts below wrongly rejected the application by ignoring the fact that Marru Singh was not in a fit state of mind and, therefore, he could not be impleaded as a party. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Balbir Singh Vs. Lamber Singh, 2004(3)PLR 84, to contend that the impugned order cannot be sustained. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. No explanation is forthcoming for delay in challenging the lease deed. The plea of the petitioners also cannot be accepted, that Marru Singh could not impleaded as a party because of his state of mind. Once the lease deed executed by Marru Singh was under challenge, he was a necessary party to the suit, therefore, the learned Courts below rightly held that prima facie no cause is made out for grant of injunction. The judgment relied upon by the petitioners is also not even remotely connected to the dispute raised in the suit and does not help the petitioners in any way to challenge the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge October 26, 2009 R.S.