Punjab-Haryana High Court Khalsa College For Women vs Rajinder Singh & Ors



Civil Revision No.637 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT


Civil Revision Petition No.637 of 2014

Date of Decision:- 29.1.2014

Khalsa College for Women



Rajinder Singh & Ors.


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.A.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral)

The conspectus of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, respondent Nos.1 to 8-plaintiffs Rajinder Singh son of Gurbax Singh & others (for brevity "the plaintiffs") have instituted the civil suit (Annexure P1) for a decree of declaration to the effect that they are owners and in possession of the land in dispute, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner-defendant No.2 Khalsa College for women and other proforma respondent Nos.9 & 10-defendant Nos.1 & 3 (for short "the defendants"), from alienating the disputed land to any other person in any manner. The petitioner-defendant No.2 contested the claim of plaintiffs, filed the written statement (Annexure P2), stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of suit.

Arvind Kumar Sharma

2014.01.30 15:43

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document


Civil Revision No.637 of 2014 2

2. Having completed all the codal formalities, ultimately, the case was slated for evidence of petitioner-defendant. The trial Court closed its evidence, by means of impugned order dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure P5).

3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-defendant No.2 has preferred the present petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. At the very outset, in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondents No.1 to 8-plaintiffs, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. Be that as it may, however, in case, they are aggrieved by the order, in any manner, they would be at liberty to file a petition to recall this order without accepting the costs.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for...

To continue reading