C.R. No.5731 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5731 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 8.9.2010 Mahabir Singh ……Petitioner VERSUS Sh. Nathu Ram and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.7.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rewari as well as judgment dated 25.8.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari, whereby applica- tion moved by the plaintiff (petitioner herein) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was rejected. C.R. No.5731 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 2. Plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration and perma- nent injunction inter-alia pleaded therein that defendant No.1 was owner in possession of agricultural land men- tioned in the plaint. Out of the total land, defendant No.1 executed an agreement to mortgage his share comprised in khewat No.143, Khatoni No.183, Rect. No.25 Killa No.16(7-7), 24(4-12), 25(8-0), total 19 kanal 19 marla for consideration of Rs.55,000/- and plaintiff paid Rs.50,000/- and defendant No.1 in the presence of the witnesses de- livered the possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiff. It has further been pleaded by the plaintiff that thereafter defendant No.1 turned dishonest and did not execute any mortgage deed. An application for ad-in- terim injunction was also moved alongwith the plaint. 3. Defendants (respondents herein) refuted the claim of the plaintiff and alleged that defendant No.1 sold the land in dispute to defendants No.2 and 3 vide registered sale deed dated 11.7.2005 and it is further contended that now defendants No.2 and 3 are in possession. Both the Courts below have dismissed the application for ad-in- terim injunction filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. 4. Undisputedly, no mortgage deed was ever executed in fa- vour of the plaintiff. Undisputedly, the alleged agreement dated 20.6.1994 was never reduced in writing and never C.R. No.5731 of 2010 (O&M) -3- got registered as required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since, learned Appellate Court has held that there is no prima-facie case and balance of conven- ience in favour of the plaintiff, there is no reason to take different view taken by learned Court below. It is a settled position of law, if both the Courts below have exercised discretion legally in favour of one of the party, then this Court while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be slow to interfere in the dis- cretion exercised by learned Courts below. 5. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. ( ALOK SINGH ) 08th September, 2010 JUDGE ashish