PARDUMAN SINGH Vs. NARAIN SINGH
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
KAMLESH SHARMA,J -
(1.) This Revision petition is directed against the judgment, dated 11 -1 -1991 passed by the District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul and Spiti Districts at Mandi in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 1991 By his order, the District Judge had disposed of the appeal on the concession of the Counsel for the parties. The Counsel for the respondents -defendants, S/sh. Narain Singh and Ranbir Singh had undertaken that "in case it is ultimately found that the site on which the defendants -appellants are raising construction is in excess of their share in the land along the National Highway, they shall demolish the structure to the extent it is found in excess of their share." The Counsel for the petitioners -plaintiffs, S/ Sh. Parduman Singh and Basant Singh had consented to the proposal and the District Judge proceeded to order accordingly. He set aside the judgment, dated 7 -12 -1990 of Sub -Judge, Sundernagar, whereby the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. for interim injunction of S/Sh. Parduman Singh and Basant Singh was allowed and status qua was ordered.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. S/Sh. Parduman Singh and Basant Singh had filed a Civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining S/Sh. Narain Singh and Ranbir Singh from making construction over the suit land and in the alternative for mandatory injunction of demolishing the structure, if any, raised during the pendendy of the suit. The suit land measures 332.97 Square Meters and is comprised in Khasra No 1606 situated in Bhojpur Bazar, Sundernagar, District Mandi, on National Highway No. 21. Admittedly, it is joint between the parties though a dispute regarding the extent of their shares is pending The claim of each party is that their share is two -third in the suit land.
(3.) Sh. Dalip Sharma learned Counsel for S/Sh. Parduman Singh and Basant Singh, has vehemently argued that the Counsel appearing on behalf of S/Sh, Parduman Singh and Basant Singh before the District Judge had no express authority to give his consent to the proposal of S/Sh Narain Singh and Ranbir Singh. Sh Basant Singh has also filed his affidavit that he was not present in the Court on 11 -1 -1991 to instruct his Counsel. According to him, as there was no offer of the kind, as given by S/Sh Narain Singh and Ranbir Singh in the Court of District Judge on 11 -1 -1991, there was no occasion for him to give any instructions to his Counsel earlier These allegations are denied by Sh Narain Singh by filing a counter -affidavit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.