Civil Revision No.3475 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3475 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.06.2010 Teekam and another ....Petitioners Versus Mehar Chand and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.03.2010, 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, seeking temporary injunction in a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, stands declined. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration claiming themselves to be co-sharers in joint possession of the land described in the plaint and seeking a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant/respondents from alienating the land without partition, and further restraining them from changing the nature of the land. The suit was contested, wherein it was pleaded that the property is not joint and, in fact, the property has already been transferred where the construction has been raised by the transferee. Civil Revision No.3475 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The learned Courts below rejected the plea of the petitioners primarily on the ground that the petitioners themselves had sold number of plots by way of sale deeds as also the defendants. Therefore, the learned Courts below came to the conclusion, that the property was not joint, though shown in the revenue record to be joint. The learned Courts below further held that the petitioners were guilty of concealment of material facts and not entitled to discretionary relief of injunction, as they failed to disclose that there was previous litigation between the parties. The learned Courts came to the conclusion that the petitioners did not have prima facie case and further being guilty of suppression of material facts, were not entitled to temporary injunction. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the impugned order by contending, that the learned Courts below have failed to notice that in the revenue record the property is shown to be in joint possession of the parties, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Courts below is prima facie contrary to the revenue . The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends, that the learned Courts below erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the property has been partitioned, as no family partition was placed on file. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the learned Courts below have mis-read the finding in the previous suit, which was qua certain plots and not regarding whole of the property in dispute, therefore, no reliance could have been placed on said judgment to non-suit the petitioners. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Once, it was proved on record Civil Revision No.3475 of 2010 (O&M) -3- that the parties had sold number of plots, and that previous litigation was with regard to part of the property, the property was held to be not joint, the learned Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that prima facie case was not proved. The learned Courts while deciding application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure are only to see prima facie case, as the findings are to be recorded after the parties have led evidence. The documents on record prima facie proved that the petitioners had no prima facie case in their favour to seek injunction. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is mis-reading of judgment, also cannot be sustained, as admittedly the property in dispute was part of the property which is claimed to be joint. The judgment, therefore, could not be said to be irrelevant, for deciding the dispute. In any case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners failed to mention about the previous litigation in the suit and were, therefore, guilty of concealment of material facts, thus, not entitled to seek discretionary relief of temporary injunction. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge June 29, 2010 R.S.