Ravinder Kumar vs Parveen And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-6182-2026 (O&M)
Ravinder Kumar . . . . Petitioner
Vs.
Parveen and Others . . . . Respondents

Reserved on: 28.10.2026
Pronounced on: 30.10.2026
Pronounced fully/operative part: Fully

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued by:- Mr. Ram Avtar Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for
the respondents.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The petitioner, who is one of the plaintiffs before the learned trial
Court, has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 04.06.2026 (Annexure P-3)
passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri, whereby his
prayer for grant of ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC
was declined, as well as the order dated 12.06.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by
the learned District Judge, Charkhi Dadri, dismissing the appeal preferred
against the said order.
2. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent
injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering in their alleged
peaceful use and enjoyment of a tube-well situated in land comprised in
Mustatil and Khasra No.62//23/2 (5-4), Khewat No.257, Khatoni No.257,
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.10.30 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-6182-2026 (O&M)
situated within the revenue estate of village Rambass, Tehsil and District Charkhi
Dadri, as reflected in the jamabandi for the year 2020-2021.
3. The case set up by the plaintiffs is that the tube-well was originally
installed by their predecessor-in-interest, namely Sheonand son of Chhaluram,
in the land bearing old Khasra No.58//32 (0-4), which was joint between the
predecessors of the parties. It was pleaded that the tube-well and the electricity
connection had been installed for irrigation of the agricultural land and that the
facility continued to be used by the members of the family. According to the
plaintiffs, even after consolidation of holdings, they continued to use the tube-
well for irrigating their agricultural fields and contributed towards payment of
electricity charges. It was alleged that the defendants subsequently obstructed
such use, necessitating institution of the suit and the accompanying application
for temporary injunction.
4. The defendants opposed the prayer, asserting that pursuant to
consolidation proceedings, the land in which the tube-well is situated, had fallen
exclusively to their share. They further claimed that they had been operating
the tube-well and paying the electricity charges. It was also asserted that the
plaintiffs had their own independent source of irrigation and, therefore, had no
occasion or right to use the tube-well situated in the defendants' land.
5. The learned trial Court, while declining the prayer for ad-interim
injunction vide order dated 04.06.2026, noticed that the land bearing Khasra
No.62//23/2 (5-4), wherein the tube-well is situated, admittedly stood allotted
to the defendants during consolidation. The Court further observed that the
defendants had produced receipts pertaining to payment of electricity charges
as well as photographs showing separate bore-wells installed for irrigation. On
the other hand, the plaintiffs had not produced sufficient material at that stage
to substantiate their claim of continuous user or contribution towards electricity
charges. Considering that the pleadings were yet to be completed, the learned
trial Court declined to grant ad-interim protection.
Page 2 of total 9 Pages
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.10.30 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-6182-2026 (O&M)
6. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the
learned District Judge, Charkhi Dadri, vide judgment dated 12.06.2026. The
learned Appellate Court observed that the question regarding ownership and
user of the tube-well was disputed and required adjudication on the basis of
pleadings and evidence. However, the learned trial Court was directed to decide
the injunction application expeditiously after considering the pleadings and
material brought on record.
7. Assailing the above orders, learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the admitted fact
that the tube-well was installed by the common ancestors of the parties much
before consolidation of holdings. According to learned counsel, the mere
circumstance that the land containing the tube-well subsequently came to be
allotted to the defendants would not extinguish the pre-existing right of the
petitioner to use the same for irrigation. It is argued that the tube-well was a
common facility and its use could not be denied merely on the strength of the
subsequent revenue entries. Learned counsel accordingly submits that refusal
of interim protection would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner, whose
agricultural land requires regular irrigation.
8. Per contra , learned counsel representing the respondents supports
the impugned orders. It is submitted that after consolidation, the land
containing the tube-well stands allotted to the defendants and the petitioner
cannot claim a right to enter upon or use the defendants' land merely because
the tube-well was installed before consolidation. It is further contended that the
petitioner has failed to establish continuous user of the tube-well after
consolidation and that the defendants have placed on record electricity
payment receipts and photographs indicating the existence of separate
irrigation facilities. Accordingly, dismissal of the revision petition is prayed for.
9. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and examined the impugned orders.
Page 3 of total 9 Pages
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.10.30 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-6182-2026 (O&M)
10. At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that learned counsel for
both sides fairly concede that the tube-well in question was installed by the
forefathers of the parties prior to consolidation of holdings and that, upon
consolidation, the particular killa number, in which the tube-well is situated,
came to be allotted to the share of the defendants. Thus, the original
installation of the tube-well by the predecessors of the parties and the
subsequent allotment of the land containing it to the defendants are not in
dispute. The controversy essentially concerns the legal effect of such allotment
upon the alleged right of the petitioner to continue using the tube-well.
11. There can be no dispute with the proposition that consolidation of
agricultural holdings brings about a rearrangement of landholdings and confers
rights upon the respective landowners in accordance with the allotments made
during consolidation proceedings. Once a particular parcel of land is allotted to
a landowner and the consolidation proceedings attain finality, another person
cannot claim possessory rights over that parcel merely because the land was
previously held jointly by their predecessors.
12. However, ownership of the land and the right to use a facility
situated thereon are not necessarily identical concepts. In a given case, a person
may establish a legally enforceable right to draw water from a tube-well
situated on another person's land, notwithstanding that the ownership of the
land vests in the latter. Such a right may arise from an express arrangement, a
legally recognised easement or some other enforceable obligation. Whether any
such right existed and survived consolidation would depend upon the nature of
the right claimed, the relevant consolidation record and the evidence produced
by the parties.
13. Equally, the mere fact that a tube-well was installed by the common
ancestors before consolidation does not automatically establish a perpetual or
independent right in favour of every descendant to continue using that facility,
irrespective of the subsequent allotment of the land. The petitioner must
Page 4 of total 9 Pages
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.10.30 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-6182-2026 (O&M)
establish the legal foundation of the right asserted by him. The earlier joint
character of the land and the common origin of the tube-well may constitute
relevant circumstances, but neither is conclusive of the petitioner's present
entitlement.
14. In this context, it is significant that the petitioner has instituted a
suit seeking permanent injunction against interference in the alleged use of the
tube-well. The relief of temporary injunction is thus founded upon his assertion
of an existing and legally enforceable right of user. For obtaining such relief, the
petitioner was required to place sufficient prima facie material before the Court
indicating not merely that the tube-well had been installed by the common
ancestors, but also that he continued to enjoy a legally protected right to use
the same after consolidation.
15. The material noticed by the Courts below does not, at this stage,
sufficiently establish such a right. Although the petitioner asserts that the
electricity charges were being shared and the tube-well was being used jointly,
the defendants have specifically disputed these assertions. The learned trial
Court noticed that the defendants had produced electricity payment receipts
and photographs relating to separate bore-wells, whereas the petitioner had
not produced corresponding receipts or other sufficient material establishing his
alleged continuous user.
16. It is true that payment of electricity charges by the defendants
would not, by itself, conclusively establish exclusive ownership of the tube-well
or extinguish an otherwise existing right of user. Similarly, the existence of
another source of irrigation with the petitioner would not necessarily defeat a
legally established right to use the disputed tube-well. Nevertheless, these
circumstances are relevant while examining whether the petitioner has
demonstrated a sufficiently strong prima facie case for grant of immediate
injunctive protection.
Page 5 of total 9 Pages
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.10.30 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-6182-2026 (O&M)
17. The question is not whether the petitioner can ultimately establish
a right to use the tube-well. That issue remains open for determination in the
suit. The limited question presently requiring consideration is whether the
material placed before the Courts below justified an ad-interim injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with the petitioner's use of a tube-
well situated on land admittedly allotted to the defendants.
18. The principles governing grant of temporary injunction are well
settled. In Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court explained that the existence of a prima facie case, balance of
convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury are essential considerations
governing the exercise of discretion under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. A
prima facie case, by itself, does not entitle a party to an injunction unless the
other requirements are also satisfied.
19. In Wander Ltd. and anr. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727 ,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an appellate Court would ordinarily not
interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court of first instance merely
because a different view is possible. Interference is justified where the
discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely, or where the
Court has ignored settled principles governing grant of interlocutory relief.
20. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the approach
adopted by the Courts below cannot be characterised as arbitrary or perverse.
The learned trial Court has taken into consideration the admitted allotment of
the land to the defendants, the disputed claim of continuous user and the
material placed on record regarding payment of electricity charges and
availability of separate irrigation facilities. These were relevant considerations
for deciding whether immediate ad-interim protection was warranted.
21. The submission that the petitioner's crops may suffer for want of
irrigation has also been considered. Undoubtedly, availability of irrigation is
important for agricultural operations, and denial of water may, in an appropriate
Page 6 of total 9 Pages
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.10.30 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-6182-2026 (O&M)
case, result in serious prejudice. However, hardship alone cannot justify grant of
an injunction in the absence of a sufficiently established prima facie legal right.
The requirement of irreparable injury cannot be examined in isolation from the
existence of such right.
22. There is another aspect of the matter. The injunction sought by the
petitioner is couched in the form of a restraint against interference with the use
of the tube-well. However, where the defendants dispute the petitioner's very
entitlement to use the facility and the land containing it admittedly stands
allotted to them, grant of the injunction may, in substance, confer upon the
petitioner a right of access and user which is yet to be established. A Court
exercising interlocutory jurisdiction must be cautious in granting relief which
substantially anticipates the final adjudication of the disputed rights.
23. It is also material that the order dated 04.06.2026 is confined to
refusal of ad-interim injunction at a stage when the defendants had not yet filed
their written statement and detailed reply. The learned Appellate Court has
expressly recognised that the rival claims require examination after completion
of pleadings and has directed expeditious consideration of the injunction
application. Thus, the impugned orders do not finally determine the petitioner's
alleged right of user.
24. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution is not intended to operate as another appellate forum for
reassessment of the factual material or substitution of a different discretionary
view. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC
329, and M/s Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is to be
exercised sparingly, to keep subordinate Courts within the bounds of their
authority, and not merely to correct every possible error of fact or law.
25. In the present case, neither has any jurisdictional error been shown
nor has it been shown that the Courts below ignored any material circumstance
Page 7 of total 9 Pages
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.10.30 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-6182-2026 (O&M)
of such significance as would render their conclusions manifestly perverse. The
admitted installation of the tube-well by the common ancestors has been
considered in the context of the subsequent consolidation and the disputed
rights of user. The conclusion that the matter requires examination upon
completion of pleadings and production of relevant evidence is a reasonably
possible view.
26. At the same time, it is clarified that the allotment of the land
containing the tube-well to the defendants shall not, by itself, be treated as
conclusive against the petitioner's claim of an independently enforceable right
of user, if otherwise established in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be
at liberty to substantiate such a claim by producing relevant consolidation
records, revenue entries, electricity records and other admissible evidence. The
defendants shall likewise be entitled to contest the existence, nature and
enforceability of the alleged right.
27. The learned trial Court shall consider the application under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, if still pending, on its own merits after completion of
the necessary pleadings and after considering the material produced by both
sides, uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned orders or herein
regarding the ultimate rights of the parties. The trial Court shall also be at
liberty to examine whether any right of user was recognised, reserved or
otherwise preserved during consolidation proceedings.
28. Consequently, finding no patent illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional error in the impugned orders dated 04.06.2026 (Annexure P-3)
and 12.06.2026 (Annexure P-4), warranting interference in exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
present revision petition is dismissed.
29. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are
confined exclusively to the question of grant of ad-interim injunction and shall
not prejudice either party in the adjudication of the pending injunction
Page 8 of total 9 Pages
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.10.30 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-6182-2026 (O&M)
application or the suit. The learned trial Court shall endeavour to decide the
pending injunction application expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, subject to completion of
necessary pleadings and reasonable opportunity to the parties.
30. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
30.10.2026
Neetika Tuteja
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
Uploaded on.: 30.10.2026
Page 9 of total 9 Pages
NEETIKA TUTEJA
2026.10.30 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document