Kulwinder Kaur Vs.

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Feb 04, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1124626

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1124626
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Feb 04, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kulwinder Kaur

Excerpt

.....coram: hon'ble mrs.justice sabina present: mr.g.s.dhaliwal, advocate for the petitioner. mr.m.s.virk, advocate for respondent no.1. none for respondents no.2 and 3. **** sabina, j. petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 03.09.2013 (annexure p-5) whereby application moved by her under order 1 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 was dismissed. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the petitioner was owner of the land in question. husband of the petitioner has filed the suit in question through his attorney against the father and brother of the petitioner with a view to evict her from the land in question. sandeep sethi 2014.02.06 16:44 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cr no.5793 of 2013 (o&m) -2- learned counsel for respondent no.1, on the other hand has opposed the petition. in the present case, respondent no.1 has filed suit for permanent injunction against respondent nos.2 and 3 for restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession. petitioner is the wife of the plaintiff. plaintiff is residing in itlay. plaintiff has sought the decree that respondents no.2 and 3 be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession qua the land in question. thus, the plaintiff has no apprehension so far as present petitioner is concerned. learned trial court rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for being impleaded as a party, as the decree passed in the suit filed by respondent no.1 against respondent nos.2 and 3 would not be binding against the petitioner, as no relief can be granted against the present petitioner in the suit filed by respondent no.1 against respondent nos.2 and 3. hence, no ground for interference is made out. dismissed. (sabina) judge february 04, 2014. sandeep sethi sandeep sethi 2014.02.06 16:44 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Full Judgment

CR No.5793 of 2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (248) CR No.5793 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:04.02.2014 Kulwinder Kaur ......Petitioner Versus Gurmit Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.G.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.M.S.Virk, Advocate for respondent No.1.

None for respondents No.2 and 3.

**** SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 03.09.2013 (Annexure P-5) whereby application moved by her under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the petitioner was owner of the land in question.

Husband of the petitioner has filed the suit in question through his attorney against the father and brother of the petitioner with a view to evict her from the land in question.

Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.5793 of 2013 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand has opposed the petition.

In the present case, respondent No.1 has filed suit for permanent injunction against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession.

Petitioner is the wife of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff is residing in Itlay.

Plaintiff has sought the decree that respondents No.2 and 3 be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession qua the land in question.

Thus, the plaintiff has no apprehension so far as present petitioner is concerned.

Learned trial court rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for being impleaded as a party, as the decree passed in the suit filed by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.2 and 3 would not be binding against the petitioner, as no relief can be granted against the present petitioner in the suit filed by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Hence, no ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE February 04, 2014.

sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Kulwinder Kaur vs Same Subject Land Acquisition