CR-4217-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 128 Dhanpati Siwach Perduman Kumar Siwach and CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA PRESENT: NIDHI GUPTA, J. 1. No. 1 under Article the order dated (Junior Division), Rohtak under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed; a filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 6 herein, has been partly allowed; and learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, order dated 21.02.2023 by petitioner 2. to 6 herein, possession by way of partition against defendants No. plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Dhanpati Siwach Versus Perduman Kumar Siwach and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA PRESENT: Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA, J. Prayer in the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed; a filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 6 herein, has been partly and the order dated 31.05.2025 learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, order dated 21.02.2023 by petitioner-defendant No. 1 has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that to 6 herein, have filed a suit dated 23.03.2022 (Annexure P possession by way of partition against the defendants No. 2 to 4/respondents No. 7 to 9 herein. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4217-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.07.2025 ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. present revision petition filed by defendant of the Constitution of India, is for setting aside 5) passed by learned Civil Judge , whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed; and that filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 6 herein, has been partly (Annexure P-7), passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby appeal against the defendant No. 1 has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents no.1 23.03.2022 (Annexure P-1) for petitioner-defendant No. 1 and 2 to 4/respondents No. 7 to 9 herein. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and is for setting aside 5) passed by learned Civil Judge , whereby the application filed by the petitioner nd that filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 6 herein, has been partly , passed by the whereby appeal against the /respondents no.1 1) for defendant No. 1 and 2 to 4/respondents No. 7 to 9 herein. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.24 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-4217-2025 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. filed writte 2). Along with the written statement also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Section 151 CPC book).The plaintiffs (Annexure P 3. P-5), the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, had disposed of both the said applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, thereby directing that 4. (Annexure P learned District Judge 31.05.2025 (Annexure P order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P 2025 -2- 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. To the said suit, the filed written statement-cum-counterclaim . Along with the written statement-cum-counterclaim also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Section 151 CPC dated 26.08.2022 (at page Nos. 25 and 26 The plaintiffs filed replication along with reply dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure P-4)to the counterclaim. Vide composite impugned order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure , the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, had disposed of both the said applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, thereby directing that: (a) (I.A. 01-2023) filed by plaintiff defendant from changing nature of the suit property and raising construction upon suit alienating the same was partly (b) (IA-02-2023) filed by the defendants seeking interim order restraining plaintiffs from interfering in ownership and possession of defendant No. 1 and from making any encroachment, was dismissed The defendants were directed ground portion of suit- not interfere in possession of plaintiff over ground floor excluding the alleged Mittal. Remaining part of relief on both declined. Both applications under Or. 39 Rr.1 & 2 C.P.C., stands disposed of Against the aforesaid impugned order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner has filed learned District Judge, Rohtak, in which vide impugned order dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-7), the directions of the learned trial Court in the order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P-5) have been To the said suit, the Petitioner had dated 14.10.2022 (AnnexureP- counterclaim, the petitioner had also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with (at page Nos. 25 and 26 of the paper- filed replication along with reply dated 22.11.2022 impugned order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure , the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, had disposed of both the said applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with 2023) filed by plaintiffs for restraining the defendant from changing nature of the suit property and raising construction upon suit property and alienating the same was partly allowed. 2023) filed by the defendants seeking interim order restraining plaintiffs from interfering in ownership and possession of defendant No. 1 and from making any encroachment, was dismissed. were directed not to alienate the -house to third party and shall in possession of plaintiff over ground alleged portion lent off to said Mr. Mittal. Remaining part of relief on both sides stands declined. Both applications under Or. 39 Rr.1 & 2 C.P.C., stands disposed off accordingly. Against the aforesaid impugned order dated 27.02.2023 filed the present appeal before the , Rohtak, in which vide impugned order dated , the directions of the learned trial Court in the have been modified to the extent had , the petitioner had read with filed replication along with reply dated 22.11.2022 impugned order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure , the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, had disposed of both the said applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with for restraining the defendant from changing nature of the suit property 2023) filed by the defendants seeking interim order restraining plaintiffs from interfering in ownership and possession of defendant No. 1 and from not to alienate the shall in possession of plaintiff over ground portion lent off to said Mr. sides stands declined. Both applications under Or. 39 Rr.1 & 2 Against the aforesaid impugned order dated 27.02.2023 appeal before the , Rohtak, in which vide impugned order dated , the directions of the learned trial Court in the modified to the extent RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.24 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-4217-2025 that the direction of the learned Civil Judge to the extent that defendants shall not excluding the alleged portion lent off to said Mr. Mittal…..’ aside, and the remaining injunction order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned trial Court property, is upheld. been filed by the defendant no.1. 5. defendant No. 1 that the petitioner is dispute to which the plaintiffs are claiming to be co contended that the family settlement; whereas of the ground floor of the suit property which was rented out to him by the husband of the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that petitioner is owner in possession of the suit respondent No. 1 petitioner over the suit house is proved from the fact that previously, the petitioner had w.e.f. 2011 to 2014 agains as is evident from letter petitioner. The proved from the agreement dated between the petitioner and Bhim Singh, Con suit house ₹28,00,000/ 2025 -3- the direction of the learned Civil Judge to the extent that defendants shall not interfere in possession excluding the alleged portion lent off to said Mr. Mittal…..’ and the remaining injunction order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned trial Court restraining the defendant from alienating the suit is upheld. Aggrieved of the same, present revision petition has been filed by the defendant no.1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner defendant No. 1 that the petitioner is exclusive owner of the property in dispute to which the plaintiffs are claiming to be co contended that the petitioner became owner of the suit property way of a family settlement; whereas respondent No. 1 is only a tenant in a portion e ground floor of the suit property which was rented out to him by the husband of the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that petitioner is owner in possession of the suit house, and she had rented the suit house to respondent No. 1-plaintiff. It is contend petitioner over the suit house is proved from the fact that previously, the petitioner had rented the suit house to H.D. Education Society, Rohtak w.e.f. 2011 to 2014 against which the rent was duly paid to the petitioner s evident from letter (Annexure P-8) issued by the said Society petitioner. The ownership of the petitioner over the suit house is also proved from the agreement dated 03.11.2013 (Annexure P between the petitioner and Bhim Singh, Con suit house for which the petitioner had also paid an amount of 28,00,000/-. It is submitted that on the other hand respondent No. 1 is the direction of the learned Civil Judge to the extent that‘……the in possession of plaintiff over ground floor excluding the alleged portion lent off to said Mr. Mittal…..’ has been set and the remaining injunction order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the aining the defendant from alienating the suit Aggrieved of the same, present revision petition has It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner- exclusive owner of the property in dispute to which the plaintiffs are claiming to be co-sharers. It is petitioner became owner of the suit property way of a respondent No. 1 is only a tenant in a portion e ground floor of the suit property which was rented out to him by the husband of the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that petitioner is owner in and she had rented the suit house to It is contended that the ownership of the petitioner over the suit house is proved from the fact that previously, the rented the suit house to H.D. Education Society, Rohtak which the rent was duly paid to the petitioner, 8) issued by the said Society to the ownership of the petitioner over the suit house is also 03.11.2013 (Annexure P-9) entered into between the petitioner and Bhim Singh, Contractor for renovation of the the petitioner had also paid an amount of submitted that on the other hand respondent No. 1 is ‘……the of plaintiff over ground floor has been set and the remaining injunction order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the aining the defendant from alienating the suit Aggrieved of the same, present revision petition has exclusive owner of the property in It is petitioner became owner of the suit property way of a respondent No. 1 is only a tenant in a portion e ground floor of the suit property which was rented out to him by the husband of the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that petitioner is owner in and she had rented the suit house to ownership of the petitioner over the suit house is proved from the fact that previously, the rented the suit house to H.D. Education Society, Rohtak to the ownership of the petitioner over the suit house is also entered into tractor for renovation of the the petitioner had also paid an amount of submitted that on the other hand respondent No. 1 is RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.24 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-4217-2025 only a tenant in some portion of the ground floor of the suit house and is paying monthly ground floor was rent total 04 floors including ground floor and all the floors have been rented out to different persons. is trying to grab the property. filed a Rent Petition of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act respondent No. 1 fr 31.03.2020 arrears of which amounts to submitted that it is clear that the petitioner is owner suit house; and as such respondents vide the orders dated P-5 and P-7, respectively) 6. heard learned counsel and carefully gone through the case file. 7. petitioner. 8. trial Court petitioner; and had Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, manner: - 2025 -4- only a tenant in some portion of the ground floor of the suit house and is paying monthly rent of ₹8000/- per month ground floor was rented out to one Mr. Mohan Mittal. The suit house had total 04 floors including ground floor and all the floors have been rented out to different persons. However, Respondent No. 1 is trying to grab the property. It is submitted that the filed a Rent Petition dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure P of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act respondent No. 1 from the suit house as he 31.03.2020 arrears of which amounts to submitted that it is clear that the petitioner is owner suit house; and as such status quo could not have been gran respondents vide the orders dated 27.02.2023 and 31.05.2025 (Annexures 7, respectively) impugned herein. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner. heard learned counsel and carefully gone through the case file. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of Vide order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P trial Court had dismissed the interim injunction application of the petitioner; and had disposed of the application filed Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, “7. It is prima facie evident from the material on record that plaintiff No. 1 is in possession over substantial portion of ground floor. Rent-note dated 10.04.2015 depicts plaintiff only a tenant in some portion of the ground floor of the suit house and is per month. The other portion of the out to one Mr. Mohan Mittal. The suit house had total 04 floors including ground floor and all the floors have been rented Respondent No. 1 with mala fide intent It is submitted that the petitioner has even 21.11.2023 (Annexure P-16) under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, for eviction of om the suit house as he failed to pay rent w.e.f. 31.03.2020 arrears of which amounts to ₹3,62,000/-. It is, therefore, submitted that it is clear that the petitioner is owner-in-possession of the could not have been granted to the 27.02.2023 and 31.05.2025 (Annexures impugned herein. No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel and carefully gone through the case file. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the 27.02.2023 (Annexure P-5), the learned dismissed the interim injunction application of the disposed of the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, in the following It is prima facie evident from the material on record that plaintiff No. 1 is in possession over substantial portion note dated 10.04.2015 depicts plaintiff only a tenant in some portion of the ground floor of the suit house and is . The other portion of the out to one Mr. Mohan Mittal. The suit house had total 04 floors including ground floor and all the floors have been rented intent petitioner has even under Section 13 , for eviction of to pay rent w.e.f. . It is, therefore, possession of the ted to the 27.02.2023 and 31.05.2025 (Annexures I have the he learned dismissed the interim injunction application of the under in the following It is prima facie evident from the material on record that plaintiff No. 1 is in possession over substantial portion note dated 10.04.2015 depicts plaintiff RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.24 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-4217-2025 9. the petitioner stood dismissed directed that no injunction can be granted was restrained from alienating the suit property. 10. is claiming owner in possess respondent case of the plaintiffs that property. P Yards comprising in House No. 453 Singh/husband of the petitioner, 6279/1 dated up his share 2025 -5- No. 1 as tenant. However, there is also a recital in the Transfer-deed dated 18.08.2017. It is also prima facie evident that some portion on ground floor was given on rent to one Mr. Mohan Mittal. Rent Jai Parkash Narayan in possession of first and second floor as tenant of Defendant No. 1. The alleged to be proved on record, which is a matter of evidence. Whether plaintiff No. 1 is in possession over suit co-sharer with 2/8 share is a matter of evidence. What is the share of defendant No. 1 or whether is exclusive owner of suit-property is again a matter of evidence. 8. In the conspectus of above facts & attending circumstances, till the decision of the suit, defendants shall not alienate ground portion of suit shall not interfere in possession of excluding the alleged portion lent off to said Mr. Mittal. Remaining part of relief on both sides stands declined. Both applications under Or. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 C.P.C. stands disposed off accordingly.” Vide order dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P the petitioner stood dismissed; and disposed of directed that as both the parties are co-sharers in the suit no injunction can be granted against the petitioner. However, petitioner was restrained from alienating the suit property. The facts that emanate from the record are that is claiming, that in pursuance to an oral family partition, she is owner in possession of the suit house; and respondent No.1 is her tenant in the suit house. On the other hand, it is the case of the plaintiffs that both the parties are joint co Plaintiff No. 1 had transferred hi Yards comprising in House No. 453 /husband of the petitioner, by way of Registered Transfer Deed No. 6279/1 dated 18.08.2017; and in lieu thereof, Narender Singh had given up his share in the suit house to plaintiff No. 1 No. 1 as tenant. However, there is also a recital in the 18.08.2017. It is also prima facie evident that some portion on ground floor was given on rent to one Mr. Mohan Mittal. Rent-note prima facie depicts one Jai Parkash Narayan in possession of first and second floor as tenant of Defendant No. 1. The alleged oral partition has to be proved on record, which is a matter of evidence. Whether plaintiff No. 1 is in possession over suit-property as sharer with 2/8 share is a matter of evidence. What is the share of defendant No. 1 or whether is exclusive owner of property is again a matter of evidence. In the conspectus of above facts & attending circumstances, till the decision of the suit, defendants shall not alienate ground portion of suit-house to third party and shall not interfere in possession of plaintiff over ground floor excluding the alleged portion lent off to said Mr. Mittal. Remaining part of relief on both sides stands declined. Both applications under Or. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 C.P.C. stands disposed 5 (Annexure P-7), appeal filed by and disposed of inasmuch as it was sharers in the suit house, as such, against the petitioner. However, petitioner was restrained from alienating the suit property. The facts that emanate from the record are that the petitioner that in pursuance to an oral family partition, she is exclusive ion of the suit house; and is further claiming that the tenant in the suit house. On the other hand, it is the both the parties are joint co-sharers in the suit his property measuring 254.4 Sq. Yards comprising in House No. 453 to his brother Narender way of Registered Transfer Deed No. and in lieu thereof, Narender Singh had given to plaintiff No. 1. The record reveals that in No. 1 as tenant. However, there is also a recital in the 18.08.2017. It is also prima facie evident that some portion on ground floor was given on rent note prima facie depicts one Jai Parkash Narayan in possession of first and second floor oral partition has to be proved on record, which is a matter of evidence. property as sharer with 2/8 share is a matter of evidence. What is the share of defendant No. 1 or whether is exclusive owner of In the conspectus of above facts & attending circumstances, till the decision of the suit, defendants shall plaintiff over ground floor excluding the alleged portion lent off to said Mr. Mittal. Remaining part of relief on both sides stands declined. Both applications under Or. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 C.P.C. stands disposed , appeal filed by inasmuch as it was as such, against the petitioner. However, petitioner the petitioner exclusive further claiming that the tenant in the suit house. On the other hand, it is the sharers in the suit s property measuring 254.4 Sq. to his brother Narender way of Registered Transfer Deed No. and in lieu thereof, Narender Singh had given The record reveals that in RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.24 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-4217-2025 the said Registered Transfer Deed Narender Singh and his wife successors shall have no right in the suit property. partition on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming exclusive ownership, is yet to be proven. Thus, interim injunction has been correctly dismissed as no prima facie case is made out in her favour. O in possession of a large part of the suit house; and also has Transfer Deed as per which petitioner has no share in the suit house. Thus, balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. the above facts, it is also clear that no irreparable harm or loss shall be caused to the petitioner. 11. to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 12. 13. 21.07.2025 rishu 2025 -6- Registered Transfer Deed there is recital to the effect that Narender Singh and his wife-Dhanpati/petitioner herein successors shall have no right in the suit property. partition on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming exclusive ownership, is yet to be proven. Thus, application of the petitioner for interim injunction has been correctly dismissed as no prima facie case is made out in her favour. On the other hand, admittedly, respondent no.1 in possession of a large part of the suit house; and also has Transfer Deed as per which petitioner has no share in the suit house. Thus, balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. the above facts, it is also clear that no irreparable harm or loss shall be caused to the petitioner. In view of the discussion above to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 21.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable there is recital to the effect that Dhanpati/petitioner herein and their successors shall have no right in the suit property. As such, the oral partition on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming exclusive application of the petitioner for interim injunction has been correctly dismissed as no prima facie case is n the other hand, admittedly, respondent no.1 is in possession of a large part of the suit house; and also has the Registered Transfer Deed as per which petitioner has no share in the suit house. Thus, balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. In the face of the above facts, it is also clear that no irreparable harm or loss shall be bove, I find no ground is made out to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No there is recital to the effect that their the oral partition on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming exclusive application of the petitioner for interim injunction has been correctly dismissed as no prima facie case is is Registered Transfer Deed as per which petitioner has no share in the suit house. In the face of the above facts, it is also clear that no irreparable harm or loss shall be no ground is made out RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.24 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.