Pawan Kumar Seth vs Tejinder Singh & Others

CR-4871-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
121-2 CR-4871-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.10.2026
Pawan Kumar Seth
....Petitioner
Vs.
Tajinder Singh and others
....Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*
HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral)
1. The present civil revision petition has been filed, under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside of the order dated
14.11.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Amritsar, as well as the order dated 20.09.2025 (Annexure P-4)
passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar.
2. Briefly, respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent
injunction against the present petitioner as well as the proforma respondents,
wherein the following prayer was made:-
“Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
agents, associates, representative, privies, employees etc. from
interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiff, in any
manner, or dispossessing him forcibly and illegally except in
due course of law, from the tenanted premises consisting of the
first floor portion and inter floor portion out of building bearing
ANKIT
2026.11.03 11:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-4871-2026 (O&M) -2-
No. 737/4-13 at Bazar Darshani Deori, Gali/Kucha Fakir
Khana, Bazar Kaserian, Amritsar, Shown as red in the site plan
attached herewith or causing damage to the roof or any
portion.”
2.1 The present petitioner appeared in the aforesaid suit and filed
his written statement, wherein in para No. 2 thereof, the following stand had
been taken:-
“That Para No. 2 of the Plaint is a matter of record. It is
also matter of record that after the death of S. Jaswant Singh
the erstwhile owners through their legal heirs became the
owners of the property in question by virtue of law. It is also
matter of record that Balbir Singh started making payment of
rent to the erstwhile owners/landlords. It is also matter of fact
that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between
the parties.
That it is submitted that Smt. Deep Kaur mortgaged the
entire property including the tenanted premises with the bank
and the said property was auctioned by the bank and the same
was purchased by the replying defendants through auction by
the bank and by way of sale certificate issued by the bank, the
replying defendants became owners in possession of the entire
property including the tenanted premises and as such the
replying defendants have become the owners qua the demised
premises and it was very well within the knowledge of plaintiff.
It is submitted over here that in the entire building there are so
many other tenants and the entire building has become unfit
and unsafe for human habitation and is in dilapidated condition
and same can fell down at any moment and tenants namely
Dharam Pal, Sunita Chadha, Kshmiri Lal and Ravinder Singh
vacated the tenanted portion occupied by them and a
compromise was also executed between the parties wherein all
ANKIT
2026.11.03 11:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-4871-2026 (O&M) -3-
the above named persons vacated the portions occupied by them
on the ground of unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It is
also submitted over here that Municipal Corporation, Amritsar
issued a notice under section 273 (2,3,4,5,6) of Punjab
Municipal Corporation, Act, 1976 vide MTP No. 1322 vide
dated 2.7.2018 upon the owners of the building as well as the
tenants including the present plaintiff and in the said notice, the
officials of Municipal Town Planner, Municipal Corporation,
Amritsar have depicted that some portions including the roof of
the building has already been fallen down and the roofs are
made of ballas and the walls have developed cracks and in the
said notice the officials have directed the owner as well as to
the plaintiff and other occupants to vacate and demolish the
building. Copy of the notice is attached herewith for the kind
perusal of this Hon'ble Court and the photographs of the entire
building as well as tenanted premises are also attached
herewith showing the existing condition of the building.”
2.2 Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed his counter-claim,
wherein the following prayer has been made:
“That the counter claimants have purchased the property in an
open auction by the bank and as per the sale certificate the
defendants no 1 and 2/ counter claimants have purchased the
entire property including the demised premises and as per the
sale certificate, the present defendants no. 1 and 2/ counter
claimants have become the owners in possession of the entire
property including the tenanted premises (copy of sale
certificate enclosed herewith for the kind perusal of this hon'ble
Court).”
2.3 Along with the suit filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff, a stay
application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was
also filed.
ANKIT
2026.11.03 11:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-4871-2026 (O&M) -4-
3. The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the aforesaid
stay application, disposed of the same vide order dated 14.11.2018
(Annexure P-2), by observing as under
“12. Plaintiffs as well as defendants are at variance regarding
condition of the suit property. Plaintiff contends that the suit
property is safe and is in a good condition. On the other hand,
defendants alleged that the suit property is in a dilapidated
condition and is likely to fall. It is a matter of evidence as to
what is the actual state of affairs. But at the same time
admittedly, plaintiff is in possession of the demised premises.
The possession of plaintiff is not denied by any of the
defendants. Defendants no1 and 2 have admitted the plaintiff to
be their tenant. In the attending circumstances in order to
protect the nature of the suit property, all of the parties are
directed to maintain status quo in regard to possession as well
as condition of the suit property till the final adjudication of this
case. This order shall not be construed as commenting anything
on the merits of the case. Further this order shall not operate
upon any person who is not party to the present case. Disposed
off.”
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, which has been dismissed vide
order dated 20.09.2025 (Annexure P-4).
5. In the aforementioned circumstances, the present revision
petition has been filed before this Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
paperbook with his able assistance.
ANKIT
2026.11.03 11:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-4871-2026 (O&M) -5-
7. The learned Trial Court has held that the stand of the plaintiff as
well as the defendants as regards the condition of the suit property is at
variance, inasmuch as the respondent No. 1 / plaintiff contends that the suit
property is safe and is in good condition, whereas on the other hand, the
present petitioner alleged that the suit property is in a dilapidated condition
and is likely to fall.
7.1 The learned Trial Court held that the actual state of affairs shall
be the matter of evidence but since the plaintiff is in possession of the
demised premises, which fact is not denied by the present petitioner, rather
they have labeled the plaintiff as their tenant, therefore, in the attending
circumstances as well as to protect the nature of the suit property, the parties
have been directed to maintain status quo regarding possession as well as the
condition of the suit property till the final adjudication of the case.
8. The aforesaid observations made by the learned Trial Court
while deciding application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 have been further
affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide its order
dated 20.09.2025.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India
Pvt. Ltd., 1990 (supp) SCC 727 ; held as under:-
“14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the
exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the
appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion
of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion
except where the discretion has been shown to have been
exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the
court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant
ANKIT
2026.11.03 11:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-4871-2026 (O&M) -6-
or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against
exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle.
Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach
a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below
if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the
material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in
interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely
on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial
stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the
discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and
in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would
have taken a different view may not justify interference with the
trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these
principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd.
v. Pothan Joseph, (1960) 3 SCR 713 . (SCR 721)
"... These principles are well established, but as has been
observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v.
Jhanaton 1942 AC 130 '...the law as to the reversal by a
court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the
exercise of his discretion is well established, and any
difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well
settled principles in an individual case'."
The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this
principl e…”
10. When the facts and circumstances of the present case are
considered in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, I see no
cogent reason which may warrant interference by this Court in the present
proceedings.
11. Resultantly, the present civil revision petition fails and the same
is accordingly, dismissed .
ANKIT
2026.11.03 11:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh

CR-4871-2026 (O&M) -7-
12. It is clarified that anything observed in this order shall have no
bearing on the merits of the case and the learned Trial Court shall decide the
matter uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein.
13. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
(HARSH BUNGER)
28.10.2026 JUDGE
Ankit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
ANKIT
2026.11.03 11:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Chandigarh