AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners have filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 21.04.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge, Piliganga, District Hanumangarh, whereby the application preferred by them under Order 11, Rule 12 & 14 read with Section 151 C.P.C. had been rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that by way of filing a suit, the petitioners have prayed that they should not be dispossessed from the house built on plot No.C-39 and further the subject house should not be alienated to anybody by the respondent.
By way of filing an application under order 39, Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. the same prayer has been reiterated that the petitioners should not be dispossessed and plot No.C-39 should not be alienated by the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the plot No.C-39 was purchased and house on the plot No.C-39 was constructed by utilizing the amount received on sale of the land of their share received in the distribution of property and, therefore, they have absolute right in the house built on plot No.C-39.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that by way of bringing on record the documents with respect to the purchase of cement bricks and other building material at the time of construction of the house are the relevant documents which are necessary for the disposal of the present suit in the right perspective. These documents goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, are essential to be taken on record.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
It is an admitted fact that the present application has been preferred with the prayer that the petitioners should not be dispossessed from the suit property and further the alienation of the same should not be done by the respondent. It has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that the main contention is with respect to the fact that the plot in question was purchased by the share of the money either of the petitioners or of the respondent. It is not the question in dispute that the house on the subject piece of land has been constructed and the material used therein has been purchased from the market.
In entirety, I am in complete agreement with the order passed by the learned trial Court on 21.04.2017 which reads as under:"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
In view of the above, I find no substance in the writ petition and the learned trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application under Order 11, Rule 12 & 14 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed and the order dated 21.04.2017, passed by the learned trial Court is upheld.