Punjab-Haryana High Court
Viney Kumar vs Municipal Corporation Ambala ... on 8 December, 2022
CR No. 1114 of 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 1114 of 2021
DATE OF DECISION :- December 08, 2022
Viney Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation Ambala City and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present:- Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
***
Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Advocate has filed vakalatnama for
respondent No. 1, which be taken on record. The earlier counsel
representing such respondent has been elevated to the Bench.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Viney Kumar
had filed a suit against Municipal Corporation, Ambala as well as Amit
Ahuja defendants seeking issuance of a decree for mandatory injunction
directing defendant No. 1 to remove illegal seal placed on shops No. 6 and 7
near Ambika Devi Mandir, Police Post No. 3 Old Civil Hospital, Ambala
City as well as decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants
from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the shops in suit. Along
with the suit he had moved application for grant of ad-interim injunction.
Notice of the suit as well as application was given to defendants, who put in
appearance. Vide order dated 1.2.2021 the application for grant of ad-
interim injunction filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed observing that the
1 of 3
relief with regard to ad-interim injunction has become infructuous because
the shops in question have since been sealed by Municipal Corporation,
Ambala on 25.11.2020 thereby showing that plaintiff is not in possession of
the suit property and has already been dispossessed from the shops in
question. It has further been observed by the trial Court that plaintiff is not a
tenant of defendant No. 1 rather tenant is defendant No. 2 Amit Ahuja. In
that way plaintiff was not entitled to issuance of any notice before sealing of
the shops in suit. It has further been observed that defendant No. 2 who is
actually tenant of defendant No. 1 has been evicted by defendant No. 1 by
giving notice after following proper procedure. With regard to the judgment
referred to by the plaintiff dated 4.7.2017 passed by then Additional District
Judge, Ambala, the said order was not against defendant No. 1. As a matter
of fact, defendant No. 1 was not a party to that litigation, therefore, plaintiff
cannot take advantage of the same. In view of the factual position, plaintiff
was not found entitled to grant of ad-interim injunction. The request of the
plaintiff for issuance of direction to defendant No. 1 to deseal suit property
was also found to be without substance and rejected. The application was
dismissed vide order dated 1.2.2021. The plaintiff had preferred an appeal
against that order before District Judge, Ambala which was assigned to
Additional District Judge, Ambala, who vide judgment dated 19.3.2021
dismissed the same.
Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached this Court by
way of filing Revision Petition praying that the orders passed by the Courts
below be set aside and ad-interim injunction as prayed for in the application
filed by him be granted to him.
2 of 3
Notice of revision petition had been given to the respondents,
who had put in appearance.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents besides going through the record.
I find that both the orders/judgment passed by the trial Court
and First Appellate Court are quite detailed, well reasoned, based upon
proper appraisal and appreciation of the factual and judicial position and do
not suffer from any illegality or infirmity much less apparent on the face of
it which might have called for interference by this Court while exercising
revisional jurisdiction.
The revision petition stands dismissed accordingly.
(H.S. MADAAN)
JUDGE
December 08, 2022
p.singh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
