Tara Singh Alias Tara Singh Bhullar And Anr vs Rakesh Abrol And Anr

CR-7503-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 207 ) CR-7503-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.11.2026
TARA SINGH ALIAS TARA SINGH BHULLAR AND ANR
… Petitioners
Versus
RAKESH ABROL AND ANR
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Kamaldeep Singh. Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioners.
None for respondents.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been preferred under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 01.09.2026
(Annexure P-10), passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur,
on the plaintiffs’ application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC, alleging
wilful disobedience of the interim order dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure P-3),
on the ground that the impugned order exceeds the scope of, and travels
beyond, the directions contained in the said interim order. The petitioners
have also sought stay of the operation of the impugned order during the
pendency of the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that their
grievance against the impugned order is confined to the extent to which it
enlarges the scope of the interim protection granted while deciding the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.05 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-7503-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. It is, accordingly,
submitted that the impugned order be suitably modified and the protection
restricted to the terms of the order dated 10.07.2025. Learned counsel
further submits that the petitioners had already raised construction of a
cinema hall after obtaining the requisite change of land use from the
competent authorities on 07.09.2021, a material fact which, according to
the petitioners, was not disclosed by the respondents while instituting the
suit.
3. A perusal of the order dated 10.07.2025 reveals that the Civil
Judge, while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
CPC, granted the following relief:-
xxxx
Accordingly, since the partition proceedings initiated by defendant Tara
Singh is pending before the revenue authorities i.e. before AC Grade I
Ferozepur, therefore, at this stage, in order to avoid multiplicity of
litigation, this Court deem it fit to grant restraint order against the
respondents/ defendants from raising any construction thereby changing
the nature of the land from agriculture to non agriculture, except after
partition of joint property. It is ordered accordingly.
4. Upon an application moved by the respondent-plaintiffs under
Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC, alleging wilful disobedience of the interim
injunction, the Civil Judge passed the impugned order, whereby the scope
of the interim protection was allegedly enlarged and certain directions
were issued to the revenue Patwari. In this regard, paragraph 5 of the
impugned order reads as under:-
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.05 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-7503-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
5. The assertions made by both the parties are a matter of evidence.
However, in order to avoid any multiplicity of the litigation and for
legal implementation of the interim injunction order dated
10.07.25, Patwari Halqa is hereby directed to visit the suit property
while accompanying with local police of PS City Ferozepur, and
enforce the above said order in letter and spirit. The Patwari Halqa
is further directed to make sure that the respondents/defendants
have not raised any fresh construction on any new area after
passing of above said injunction order with regard to Rect No.209
Killa No.4/2(6-1) 7(8-0) Rect No.210 Killa No.11(7-15) as per
Jamabandi for the year 2018-19. The Patwari Halqa is further
directed to ensure that the construction if any being raised by
defendants/respondents as alleged, is only on their already
occupied and possessed land and not on the Rect No.209 Killa
No.4/2(6-1) 7(8-0) Rect No.210 Killa No.11(7-15) as per
Jamabandi for the year 2018-19, With these observations, the
application in hand stands allowed and disposed off accordingly.
5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Patwari was
directed to inspect the suit property and ensure that no fresh construction
was raised, after passing of the injunction order, over any additional
portion of land comprised in Killa Nos. 4/2 (6-1), 7 (8-0) and 11 (7-15).
The Halqa Patwari was further directed to ensure that any construction, if
being raised by the defendants-petitioners, remained confined to the land
already occupied and in their possession, and did not extend to land
comprised in Rect. No. 209, Killa Nos. 4/2 (6-1) and 7 (8-0), or Rect. No.
210, Killa No. 11 (7-15), as reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 2018-
19.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.05 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-7503-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
petitioners have raised construction over the Killa numbers in question,
except Killa No. 4/2 (6-1), which has been left vacant for use as a parking
area for the cinema hall. It is further submitted that no construction has
been raised by the petitioners over the suit land claimed by the applicants.
6. A perusal of the material on record reveals that the petitioners
were granted permission for change of land use (CLU) in respect of land
comprised in Khasra Nos. 209//3/2/2 (6-5), 209//4/1/2 (0-16), 209//4/2 (6-
1) and 4/1/2 (1-6), measuring a total area of 4 kanals and 11 marlas 8
Sarsai (‘a traditional unit of land measurement used in parts of Punjab and
Haryana. It is a subdivision of a marla ’) , upon deposit of the requisite
CLU charges, processing fee (PF), scrutiny fee (UDC) and other
applicable charges, for the purpose of establishing a cinema hall. It is
further the case of the petitioners that the cinema building has already been
constructed and only the finishing work remains to be carried out. In view
of the fact that the requisite CLU permission was obtained much prior to
the institution of the suit, coupled with the petitioners’ assertion that the
construction already stands raised and only finishing touches remain, this
Court deems it appropriate to modify the impugned order to the extent that
the petitioners are permitted to undertake the finishing work in the existing
structure. However, such permission shall remain strictly subject to the
final outcome of the suit and shall not, in any manner, prejudice the rights
and contentions of the parties.
6.1. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.05 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-7503-2026 (O&M) -:5:-
7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made here-in-
above are confined strictly to the adjudication of the controversy arising in
the present proceedings and shall not be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. Nothing stated herein
shall prejudice or influence the rights, claims or contentions of either party
in the pending suit or any other proceedings, nor shall these observations
be treated as a determination of any substantive question of fact or law
arising therein.
8. In view of the final disposal of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly. No further orders are warranted.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
05.11.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.05 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document