Skip to content


Deepak Kumar Vs. Smt. Ranjna Rani and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantDeepak Kumar
RespondentSmt. Ranjna Rani and Another
Excerpt:
.....respondent no.2 harjinder singh/defendant no.1) from interfering in the working of the disputed filling station namely m/s radha krishan filling station and from interfering in possession of the plaintiff thereon and from tiwana dalbir singh 2013.08.23 10:56 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. high court, chandigarh civil revision no.2392 of 2013 -2- causing any damage to the building and machinery thereof during pendency of the suit. case of the plaintiff is that she has been running the aforesaid filling station as sole proprietor thereof. at the instance of defendants, partnership deed dated 9.4.2007 annexure p/3 was prepared between the parties, but the said partnership deed could not be acted upon because indian oil corporation (ioc) did not allow the.....
Judgment:

Civil Revision No.2392 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2392 of 2013 Date of decision : August 21, 2013 Deepak Kumar ....Petitioner versus Smt.

Ranjna Rani and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice L.N.Mittal Present : Mr.Vivek Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N.Mittal, J.

(Oral) In this revision petition filed by defendant No.2 Deepak Kumar under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order dated 29.8.2012 Annexure P/2 passed by the trial court and judgment dated 4.1.2013 Annexure P/1 passed by the lower appellate court thereby granting temporary injunction in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff Smt.

Ranjna Rani and thereby restraining the defendants (petitioner/defendant No.2 and respondent No.2 Harjinder Singh/defendant No.1) from interfering in the working of the disputed Filling Station namely M/s Radha Krishan Filling Station and from interfering in possession of the plaintiff thereon and from Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.08.23 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2392 of 2013 -2- causing any damage to the building and machinery thereof during pendency of the suit.

Case of the plaintiff is that she has been running the aforesaid Filling Station as sole proprietor thereof.

At the instance of defendants, partnership deed dated 9.4.2007 Annexure P/3 was prepared between the parties, but the said partnership deed could not be acted upon because Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) did not allow the plaintiff to run the Filling Station in partnership and therefore, the plaintiff is sole proprietor in possession of the disputed Filling Station.

Defendants controverted the version of the plaintiff and pleaded that as per partnership deed Annexure P/3, they joined as active partners of the disputed Filling Station with the plaintiff whereas plaintiff herself is sleeping partner.

Defendants are running the Filling Station in question.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the version of the defendants as noticed hereinbefore.

However, it is admitted case of the parties that licence for running the disputed Filling Station has been granted by IOC.

However, IOC has not granted permission to the plaintiff to run the Filling Station in partnership with the defendants.

Consequently, the defendants cannot be allowed to run the Filling Station with plaintiff as partneRs.Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.08.23 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2392 of 2013 -3- In addition to the aforesaid, partnership deed Annexure P/3 is also unregistered and therefore, on the basis of the same, the defendants cannot claim right to run the Filling Station.

In view of the aforesaid, I find that temporary injunction has been rightly granted by the courts below in favour of the plaintiff.

Impugned orders of the courts below do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the suit.

( L.N.Mittal ) August 21, 2013 Judge 'dalbir' Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.08.23 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

High Court, Chandigarh


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //