Jaswant Singh, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF is in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution aggrieved against the orders passed by the Courts below i.e. order dated 08.01.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon and order dated 10.04.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JR.Divn.), Gurgaon whereby its application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction has been declined.
(2.) IN brief, facts are that the plaintiff/company filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction to the effect that the learned Assistant Collector Grade -I Sohana be restrained from passing the orders on an application for Takseem (partition) filed by defendant no. 1. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was moved by the plaintiff for restraining the AC Grade -I, Sohana to proceed with the case of partition till the pendency of the present suit and also for grant of injunction against the defendants and its heirs, agents, successors etc., from alienating, selling, disposing of the property during the pendency of the suit. Reply was filed by the respondent no. 1 whereby it was averred that the Revenue Court is competent to proceed with the proceedings of the partition case titled as "Vinod Kumar Vs. M/s. G.D. Goenka" and the Authority created under a particular Act cannot be restrained from exercising its jurisdiction under law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that as per Section 158(2)(xvii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, if on an agricultural land plots have been carved out and houses have been constructed, then the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to partition the land and the Revenue Courts lose their jurisdiction. It has been further argued that the present petitioner has already moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the Revenue Authority in the partition proceedings to become a party, as the petitioner is the actual owner of the property in question and not defendant no. 1 -Vinod Kumar and thus, it was argued that the learned Revenue Authority had no jurisdiction to pass the order on the partition application of Vinod Kumar in the absence of petitioner -company. It has been further argued that the learned District Judge has declined the relief of injunction to the petitioner primarily for the reasons that there is a bar under Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act for Civil Courts to entertain the suit upon which the Revenue Authority has jurisdiction by illegally ignoring the principle that Civil Courts are competent to entertain a suit where a question of title has been raised and thus, in view of the above, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book with his able assistance, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.;