Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdeep Singh vs Ashwani Khanna on 24 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055840
CR-7894-2017(O&M) 2024:PHHC:055840
1
114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-7894-2017(O&M)
Date of decision :24.04.2024
Sukhdeep Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
Ashwani Khanna ...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate
for the respondent,
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)
1. This revision petition has been filed against the trial Court's judgment passed while dismissing the petitioner's suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
2. A summary suit for restoration of possession is maintainable if a plaintiff complains that he has been forcibly dispossessed from the suit property within a period of 06 months. The petitioner herein was a tenant. He claims that he has been forcibly dispossessed on 09.06.2011, whereas, it is the stand of the respondent that on 31.05.2011, the petitioner handed over the vacant possession of the premises. The trial Court permitted the parties to lead evidence. The petitioner heavily relied upon the police complaint and investigation.
3. On the other hand, the defendant himself appeared as DW-1, whereas, he examined four more witnesses including two neighbours, namely, 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 27-04-2024 07:08:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055840 CR-7894-2017(O&M) 2024:PHHC:055840 2 Sh. Ashwani Kapoor and Sh. Satish Kumar. It came on the record that the petitioner had taken adjoining premises on rent and had shifted some of the furniture.
4. Thus, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove forcible dispossession.
5. During the pendency of the revision petition, an application has been filed for permission to lead additional evidence. The petitioner wishes to produce certain photographs taken by the police of the premises showing that some goods belonging to the petitioner are lying in the premises.
5. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties.
6. The petitioner appeared as PW-1. During the cross-examination, he admitted that he had shifted two Air Conditioners, furniture, computer etc. from SCO No. 43 to SCO No. 45, Sector 30, Chandigarh, whereas the rest of the furniture was lying in SCO No. 53, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh. Thus, it is obvious that conclusion drawn by the trial Court is not incorrect. Moreover, two neighbours, namely, Sh. Ashwani Kapoor and Sh. Satish Kumar have deposed before the trial Court that the petitioner voluntary handed over the possession of the premises.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the application for additional evidence as well as the revision petition filed by the petitioner are dismissed.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
24.04.2024 JUDGE
neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 27-04-2024 07:08:39 :::