Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Petition Seeking Injunction in Property Dispute, Holds No Prima Facie Case Made Out

Case Name: Siri 1008 Bhagwan Aadi Nath Digember Jain Mandir Ji Navin v. Narender Kumar Jain
Date of Judgment: October 15, 2025
Citation: CR-2745-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent orders of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court refusing temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Justice Alka Sarin held that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury to warrant ad interim relief. The Court observed that discrepancies in ownership documents and rent receipts created serious doubt about the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, and without such proof, injunction could not be granted.

Summary: The petitioner, claiming to be a juristic entity managing the affairs of Siri 1008 Bhagwan Aadi Nath Digember Jain Mandir Ji Navin, filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that the respondent, a tenant, was attempting to reconstruct a shop in dilapidated condition without authorization. The petitioner relied on rent receipts allegedly countersigned by the respondent and a gift deed dated October 20, 1987, to assert ownership. The Trial Court dismissed the injunction application on November 1, 2021, holding that no prima facie case or balance of convenience existed in favour of the petitioner. The First Appellate Court upheld this view on April 8, 2024. In the revision, counsel for the petitioner argued that rent receipts and municipal property records demonstrated tenancy and ownership. However, Justice Alka Sarin noted that the gift deed in question conveyed only a one-sixth share of 20 square yards to Siri Digamber Jain Shiksha Parcharni Sabha, not to the petitioner Mandir Ji Navin, and did not identify any specific shop number. Moreover, the rent receipts produced did not mention the shop number and were issued by “Mandir Ji Navin, Gohana, Rohtak” rather than the plaintiff-petitioner entity “Siri 1008 Bhagwan Aadi Nath Digember Jain Mandir Ji Navin, Main Bazar, Gohana.” The Court held that in the absence of any rent note or credible document establishing the tenant-landlord relationship, the petitioner had failed to show any right warranting injunction.

Decision: Concluding that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had rightly declined interim injunction, the High Court dismissed the revision petition as devoid of merit and directed that all pending applications stand disposed of. The Court further clarified that its observations, as well as those of the courts below, shall not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.