Civil Revision No. 5056 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5056 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.08.2010 Kali Ram. ...Petitioner Versus Sahaj Ram and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Kartar Singh Malik-1, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.6.2010 passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands dismissed. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant/respondents from interfering in the possession of the land in his possession, on the ground, that the suit land was partitioned during life time of their predecessor-in-interest, and that the plaintiff was in possession of the property falling to his share, in which the defendant/respondents had no right or interest. On notice having been issued, the defendant/respondents challenged the maintainability of the suit, and contested the case on merit, by pleading therein that the defendant/respondents have been put in possession of the disputed land by virtue of order of partition passed by the revenue authorities. The defendants also pleaded and prima facie proved, that the appeal filed by the plaintiff/petitioner against the order of partition was Civil Revision No. 5056 of 2010 (O&M) -2- also dismissed. The petitioner had not disclosed this fact in the plaint. The learned Courts below held, that the plaintiff being guilty of concealment of material facts, was not entitled to discretionary relief of injunction and dismissed the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground, that the order passed by the revenue authorities, was void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff/petitioner, as the suit land was partitioned between the parties, therefore, there was no occasion for the revenue authorities, to again partition the land. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is in possession, and not the defendant/respondents. The learned Courts below, therefore, committed an error in dismissing the injunction application merely for the reason that petitioner had not disclosed about the revenue proceedings in the plaint. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once, it is not disputed, that the material particulars relevant for the adjudication of the case, were concealed by the petitioner, he was not entitled to discretionary relief of injunction, as held by learned Courts below. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 12, 2010 R.S.