C.R. No. 4338 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4338 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 17, 2009 Karamjit Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Amarjit Kaur …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. This is a plaintiff’s second revision petition aggrieved by the order passed by lower Appellate Court on March 26, 2009 upholding the order of dismissal of an application for grant of temporary injunction vide order dated July 30, 2007. The appeal of the petitioner was earlier dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, on November 20, 2007. He had filed a Civil Revision No. 938 which was decided on February 24, 2009 directing the Lower Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal afresh. It is C.R. No. 4338 of 2009 [2] the second appeal which has again been dismissed after the directions of the court which has led the plaintiff- petitioner to file this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant- respondent from interfering in his peaceful and lawful possession of a residential house measuring 2.87 marla bearing M.C. No. 3772 situated in Mohalla Guru Nanakpura, Nakodar, District Jalandhar and bounded as North: House of Hari Singh South: House of Mulkh Raj East: Street West: Property of Piara Singh. claiming that he is owner in possession of the said residential house. He had also field an application for interim injunction claiming that he has got electricity bills showing that electric meter connection is installed in the name of his mother Balbir Kaur. He also relies upon copies of the ration card, gas connection issued by gas agency, telephone bills in respect of Telephone No. 225974 issued by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited installed at the residence of the petitioner, copy of the pass-book showing statement of account w.e.f. May 15, 2005 issued by Punjab National Bank. It is also claimed by the petitioner that his daughter-Gurpreet Kaur was born on December 1, 2005 and in her date of birth certificate the address of petitioner is shown as 3772A, Mohalla Guru Nanakpura, Nakodar. The case of the defendant, as per her written statement, is that the plaintiff is C.R. No. 4338 of 2009 [3] permanent resident of House No. 3769 situated on the other side of the street. The ration card, voter identity card of the plaintiff and his family members pertaining to such house No.3769 and his mother Balbir Kaur has given wrong facts to the officials of the electricity Board to create evidence regarding the possession of the house in dispute. The defendant has tried to explain that Munsha Singh was owner in possession of the house and the adjoining part during his life time. He never gave this house to plaintiff or his family. The defendant is legally wedded second wife of Sat Pal son of Munsha Singh. The entire house No.3772 was bequeathed by said Munsha Singh in favour of defendant and his son Hari Singh in equal share. The said Will was registered in the year 1990. As Munsha Singh died on March 14, 1993, and thereafter defendant Amarjit Kaur and Hari Singh became joint owners in possession of said house, they partitioned the said joint house and thereafter demolished the same. Then they reconstructed new house and house in question is exclusively owned and possessed by defendant. The plaintiff tried to take forcible possession of the property without any locus standi and has filed the suit by concealing the material facts to harass the defendant. The Will of Munsha Singh has not been changed. The defendant being legally wedded second wife of Satpal Singh son of Munsha Singh having his son Kulwant Singh born on February 25, 1981 in Kuwait and being daughter-in-law of Munsha Singh used to serve him during her stay in India. The Will was executed by her father-in-law in her favour. She has got sanctioned the building plan from M.C., Nakodar, on July 7, 1999 and deposited building construction fee and house was C.R. No. 4338 of 2009 [4] constructed in the year 1999-2000 well within the knowledge of the plaintiff. The trial Court taking into consideration the documents produced by both the parties formed an opinion that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff reflect the house No.3769 whereas the house bears the number 3772. The documents of sanction of site plan, deposit of building fee, supported the plea taken by the defendant. The Will was also taken into consideration to determine if the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff or defendant to find out whether plaintiff has got a prima facie strong case. The trial Court observed that the copy of the ration card also reflected that house N.3769 was in possession of the plaintiff and defendant as per her address is also residing in the same mohalla. The house in question seems to be on the other side of the street as such the application was dismissed. The lower Appellate Court has considered the limited scope of interference in exercise of power under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC and observed on merits that the defendant had got sanctioned proposed constructions with regard to house No. 3772 and the Will executed by Munsha Singh in her father is a registered document of the year 1990. The petitioner having not explained to show as to how he is resident of house No.3769 in the ration card and the voter identity card, he was not entitled to seek injunction regarding house No. 3772. The main contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the documents like electricity bill, ration card, gas connection, telephone bill have not been considered by the Lower Appellate Court despite the fact that the matter was remanded back to the Lower Appellate Court. C.R. No. 4338 of 2009 [5] I have gone through the copies of the documents which have been attached. The electricity bill relied upon shows that there is no address printed on the electricity bill rather above the column of name of consumer, AH 3772 has been mentioned by over-writing. The bill of BSNL is dated January 5, 2008 and seems to be recently procured document in the name of Balbir Kaur wife of Satpal Singh. In Punjab National Bank pass book, the address of Balbir Kaur is mentioned as House No. 3772 A whereas the suit pertains to H.No. 3722. The said documents have been taken into consideration by the lower Appellate Court also simultaneously taking into consideration the documents produced by respondent. It is prima facie established from all these documents that there are actually two houses whose description has not been properly given by the plaintiff. The plaintiff seems to have concealed the factum of partition of the property owned by Munsha Singh, father of Satpal Singh. Prima facie, it appears that the plaintiff is residing in H.No. 3769 which was separated from the one jointly owned bigger plot/ house. The defendant prima facie appears to be second wife of Satpal Singh who was son of Munsha Singh whereas the plaintiff seems to be son of same Satpal Singh from his wedlock with Balbir Kaur. In view of the above circumstances, the plaintiff has not been able to establish prim facie a strong case in his favour. The balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour. Besides this, the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish as to what irreparable loss will be caused by the defendant lady and as to how she is capable of dispossessing him from the C.R. No. 4338 of 2009 [6] house which is actually possessed by him. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. August 17, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE