MEERA CHAUHAN versus HARSH BISHNOI AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 965 · Decided: 13-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MEERA CHAUHAN 
A 
HARSH BISHNOI AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 13, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND T ARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908: 
Section 15 I-Suit for declaration of title by first party against second 
party-Interim order against second party restraining him fi"om alienating C 
the property-No injunction restraining him from dispossessing the first 
party-Suit property sold to third party-Pendency of suit and interim 
injunction not within knowledge of second and third party-Writ Petition by 
first party alleging dispossession by second party, pending-Application 
under Section I 5 I CPC alleging dispossession allowed by trial court re(ving D 
on documenfaJJ' evidence in support of possession of first party-In Revision, 
High Court refusing inte1ference with order of trial court without going into 
merit on the ground that dispossession in violation of interim order-On 
appeal, held: Rejection of revision application by High Court at the time of 
admission was not correct-Dispossession was not in violation of interim 
order as there was no such interim order-Trial Court was not justified in E 
directing restoration of possession-Trial Court ought to have directed the 
parties to advance oral as well as dpcumentary evidence and also considered 
the fact of pendency of the suits-Both the courts below also failed to notice 
the pendency of the writ petition. 
Section I 51-/nherent powers of court-Scope of-Discussed. 
The suit property was bequeathed in favour of respondent No. 2 by 
a registered Will by the owner of the property (mother of respondent Nos. 
I and 2). After death of his mother, respondent No. 1 applied for mutation 
before the Army Authorities and the same was rejected. 
Respondent No. 1 then filed a suit for declaration of title over the suit 
property against respondent No. 2 on the basis of an oral family settlement. 
Trial Court granted ex-parte interim order of injunction against respondent 
No. 2 from interfering with possession of respondent No. 1. 
F 
G 
965 
H 
966 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A 
When the interim order of injunction was in force, appellant purchased 
the suit property from respondent No. 2 and she was put in possession of the 
property. 
Respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition alleging forcible alleging 
dispossession and seeking restoration of possession. Thereafter he also filed 
B a suit seeking restoration of possession. However, the suit was withdrawn 
later. Respondent No. l had also filed an application under Section 151 CPC 
alleging his dispossession and the same was rejected on the ground that the 
suit under the Act was already filed and was pending. 
C 
Appellant made an application for impleadment in the pending suit 
and the same was allowed on the ground that neither respondent No. 2 
nor appellant had knowledge about the pendency of the suit or the interim 
order on the date of sale to the appellant . 
. Application under Section 151 CPC reconsidered on direction from 
D High Court and then the application was allowed. On consideration of 
certain electricity Bills trial court held that resp~ndent No. I was in 
possession of the suit property till respondent No. 2 had forcibly 
dispossessed him. Revision application against the order of trial court was 
rejected by High Court on the ground that dispossession of respondent No.I 
was in violation of the injunction order. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. High Court in the facts and circumstances of this case ought 
not to have rejected the revisional application at the.admission stage. High 
Court proceeded to affirm the order of the trial court only on the ground that 
F as an order of injunction passed by that court restraining the appellant and 
the respondent no. 2 from interfering with the possession of the respondent 
no. I was violated and therefore possession should be restored. This approach 
of the High Court, was totally unsustainable as it had failed to notice that no 
order of injunction restraining the respondent no. 2 from interfering with 
G the possession of the respondent No.I in respect of the suit property was 
passed. On the other hand, it was a matter of fact that only an order restraining 
the respondent no. 2 from transferring, alienating or encumbering the suit 
property was passed till the disposal of the application for injunction. That 
apart, the High Court was also not justified in rejecting the civil revisiona

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.