CR-732-2024 260 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kawaljit Kaur Jaspal Singh CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. 1. The the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure P by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, filed by the respondent Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) was 2. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff from residential double storey house bearing No.48, measuring 100 sq.yds situated in Baba Darshan Singh Avenue, Kale Ghanupur Tehsil and District Amritsar. 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Date of Decision : VERSUS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. -.- VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (Oral) The instant revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure P by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, filed by the respondent/defendants under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) was allowed. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted a injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering ceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff from residential double storey house bearing No.48, measuring 100 sq.yds situated in Baba Darshan Singh Avenue, Kale Ghanupur Tehsil and District Amritsar. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-732-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 17.07.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent VIKRAM AGGARWAL Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, vide which the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil . suit (Annexure P-1) for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering into the lawful and ceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff from residential double storey house bearing No.48, measuring 100 sq.yds situated in Baba Darshan Singh Avenue, Kale Ghanupur Tehsil and District Amritsar. -1- has been preferred under Article 227 of 4) passed the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil permanent into the lawful and ceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff from residential double storeyed house bearing No.48, measuring 100 sq.yds situated in Baba Darshan Singh TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.18 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-732-2024 3. An CPC by the respondent/defendant seeking upon in the plaint. It was averred that the documents relied upon in the plaint had not been annexed annex the said documents and then for supplying the respondent/defendant. 4. The application was opposed by way of the impugned ord instant petition. 5. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, despite service. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. A perusal of the plaint shows that a number of documents were referred in the same. The application moved by the respondent/defendant was slightly vague though it did refer to certain documents, sought. The impugned order does no relied upon in the plaint nor the application. The trial Court straight away allowed the application and issued a direction to the petitioner/plaintiff to supply executed by Dalbir Singh and a copy of receipt consideration received by Dalbir Singh whereas plaint as regards 8. That being so, the impugned order remanded to the trial Court 2024 (O&M) An application (Annexure P-2) was moved under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC by the respondent/defendant seeking certified copies of documents relied upon in the plaint. It was averred that the documents relied upon in the plaint had not been annexed. A direction was, therefore, sought to the petitioner/plaintiff to annex the said documents and then for supplying the respondent/defendant. The application was opposed by way of reply way of the impugned order, the application was allowed leading to the filing of No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, despite I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the plaint shows that a number of documents were referred in the same. The application moved by the respondent/defendant was slightly vague though it did refer to certain documents, . The impugned order does not discus as to which documents relied upon in the plaint nor does it discuss about the documents sought by way of the application. The trial Court straight away allowed the application and issued a direction to the petitioner/plaintiff to supply t executed by Dalbir Singh and a copy of receipt consideration received by Dalbir Singh whereas plaint as regards the receipt etc. That being so, the impugned order to the trial Court for deciding the application afresh 2) was moved under Order 7 Rule 14 certified copies of documents relied upon in the plaint. It was averred that the documents relied upon in the plaint had , therefore, sought to the petitioner/plaintiff to annex the said documents and then for supplying the certified copies of the same to way of reply (Annexure P-3). By the application was allowed leading to the filing of No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, despite I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the plaint shows that a number of documents were referred in the same. The application moved by the respondent/defendant was slightly vague though it did refer to certain documents, the copies of which were t discus as to which documents had been about the documents sought by way of the application. The trial Court straight away allowed the application and issued a the copies of sale deed/agreement executed by Dalbir Singh and a copy of receipt showing the amount consideration received by Dalbir Singh whereas there is no such averment in the That being so, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is deciding the application afresh after examining -2- 2) was moved under Order 7 Rule 14 certified copies of documents relied upon in the plaint. It was averred that the documents relied upon in the plaint had , therefore, sought to the petitioner/plaintiff to certified copies of the same to 3). By the application was allowed leading to the filing of No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, despite A perusal of the plaint shows that a number of documents were referred in the same. The application moved by the respondent/defendant was copies of which were had been about the documents sought by way of the application. The trial Court straight away allowed the application and issued a sale deed/agreement of no such averment in the . The matter is after examining the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.18 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-732-2024 provisions of law as also the plaint, Rule 14 CPC and the reply thereto and after hearing both sides. 9. The Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. July 17, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2024 (O&M) provisions of law as also the plaint, the application move and the reply thereto and after hearing both sides. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No application moved order under Order 7 and the reply thereto and after hearing both sides. petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE -3- order under Order 7 (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.18 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document