Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 4th, 2011 Jodha Singh .... Petitioner Versus Nirmal Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Shri Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Jodha Singh, one of the defendants, has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 26.7.2011 (Annexure P6) passed by Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide which the appeal filed by Nirmal Singh, plaintiff – respondent No.1, had been allowed and the order dated 9.9.2010 (Annexure P5) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla has been set aside. Jodha Singh is a rickshaw puller. He has two sons, named - Nirmal Singh and Charanjit Singh. Respondent No.1 – Nirmal Singh is married and he used to live in the house owned and possessed by the petitioner. Since the wife of the petitioner Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2011 2 .. was not keeping well and respondent No.1 was not serving the petitioner and his wife, respondent No.1 started living separately from the petitioner in a different house. Now, the wife of the petitioner had died and the petitioner cooks food on his own for himself and for his handicapped son, named Charanjit Singh, respondent No.2. Nirmal Singh has filed a suit with malafide intention for permanent injunction restraining Jodha Singh and Charanjit Singh from forcibly dispossessing him from the house in question. It is further claimed by Nirmal Singh that taking undue benefit of the fact that title deed of the house in question is in his name, the petitioner wants to dispossess the plaintiff from the house in question, to which he has no right. The defendants resisted the claim of Nirmal Singh. It is claimed that defendant No.1 is owner in possession of the house in question and the plaintiff is not entitled to the injunction against him as also the other defendant. He has claimed that he purchased the house in question vide sale deed dated 8.4.1981 from his hard earned money. The plaintiff is denied to be in possession of any part of the house in question. Denying his concern with the house in question, his claim was prayed to be dismissed. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla dismissed the application as she found no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff nor she had found balance of convenience in his favour. Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2011 3 .. In the appeal, preferred by Nirmal Singh, learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur has found the plaintiff to be residing in the house in question with his family and according to learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, the equity demanded status quo to be maintained between the parties with regard to the suit property. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, defendant – Jodha Singh has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Anil Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Admittedly, Nirmal Singh is one of the two sons of Jodha Singh. Jodha Singh has claimed the house in question to be purchased by him vide sale deed dated 8.4.1981 from his hard earned money. There does not seem to be any serious dispute about this fact in the case before me. The question primarily is as to whether Nirmal Singh is in possession of the house in question and can he seek ad-interim injunction prayed for by him on the ground of his being son of defendant – Jodha Singh and having a right to reside in the house. If Jodha Singh is the owner of the house in question and he has purchased this house from his hard earned money, it is his self acquired property. He may or may not allow his son to stay in the same. However, it cannot be said at this stage that Nirmal Singh is not in possession of the house in question. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Civil Revision No. 6116 of 2011 4 .. Nirmal Singh is not residing in the house in question cannot be believed in the absence of any specific plea as to where he has been residing at present. Nothing has come in the pleadings of the defendant as to till what date, Nirmal Singh remained in possession of the house in question and when he left the house. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be said to be out of possession of the house in question. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case, learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur has directed the trial court to expedite the trial of the suit to be decided within 1 year from the date of receiving the record of that court. In these circumstances, the order of status quo was the best order to maintain harmony between the family. Since some time has been spent from the period of one year, given to the trial court for deciding the suit, this time can be further extended to make it one year from the date of receiving of copy of this order by the trial court. With these observations, I find no merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 4th, 2011 som