Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhagwant Singh vs Nagar Council, Sri Muktsar Sahib ... on 13 December, 2022
RSA-2405-2022(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-2405-2022(O&M)
Date of decision:-13.12.2022
Bhagwant Singh
...Appellant
Versus
Nagar Council, Sri Muktsar Sahib and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.Raghav Goyal, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. In nutshell, facts of the case are that plaintiff Bhagwant
Singh had filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction against
defendants i.e. Nagar Council, Sri Muktsar Sahib, Pritam Kaur wife
of Gurnam Singh and Jagtar Singh son of Jangir Singh, seeking a
decree restraining the defendants from illegally and forcibly entering
name of Smt.Pritam Kaur - defendant No.2 in the record/assessment
register regarding the house bearing old property No.5258 and 5261
with present property No.B-0200330 as per record/assessment
register of Nagar Council, Sri Muktsar Sahib - defendant No.1; such
house being located in Suja Patti near Chota Talab, Sri Muktsar
1 of 6
RSA-2405-2022(O&M) -2-
Sahib.
2. As per the version of the plaintiff, he along with his
brother Jagtar Singh - defendant No.3 had purchased the suit
property from Jhanda Singh son of Ujjagar Singh R/o Sri Muktsar
Sahib vide sale deed No.3494 dated 4.3.1991 and both of them
become owners in possession of the house in dispute; subsequently
some differences arose between the brothers and Jagtar Singh
defendant No.3 had sold his share in the suit property in favour of the
defendant no.2 Pritam Kaur without getting the house partitioned;
Smt.Pritam Kaur wants to get her name entered in the assessment
register/record of Nagar Counsel, Sri Muktsar Sahib to grab the suit
property; the defendants have no right to do so. Feeling aggrieved by
such act of defendants, the plaintiff brought the suit in question in the
Civil Court at Muktsar Sahib.
3. On getting notice, the defendants appeared and filed
written statements contesting the suit.
4. No replication was filed by the plaintiff to the written
statements.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed:
1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as
prayed for? OPP
2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?
2 of 6
RSA-2405-2022(O&M) -3-
OPD
3) Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from
the court
4) Whether plaintiff has no right, cause of action and locus
standi to file the present suit? OPD
5) Relief ? OPD
6. The parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead
their evidence.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial
Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.2017 decreed the suit of
the plaintiff in the process restraining the defendants from entering
name of defendant No.2 in the record/assessment register regarding
the house in question illegally and forcibly.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
the defendant No.2 Pritam Kaur had filed an appeal in the Court of
District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, who vide judgment and decree
dated 28.11.2017 accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court and consequently, dismissed the suit
of the plaintiff with costs.
9. Now it was turn of the plaintiff to feel aggrieved and he
has filed the present regular second appeal before this Court. Since
the appeal has not been filed filed within period of limitation, an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
3 of 6
RSA-2405-2022(O&M) -4-
delay of 960 days has been moved contending that the appellant had
firstly got filed regular second appeal through some other counsel;
some objections were raised by the registry; the appellant was sick
and unable to re-file the appeal after attaching necessary documents
thereby it got barred by limitation; however, the delay in filing the
appeal was not intentional or wilful, therefore the same be condoned.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant
besides going through the record.
11. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with Bar of
Limitation providing that every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and
application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed
although limitation has not been set up as a defence.
Section 5 of that very act provides that any appeal or any
application may be admitted after the prescribed period if the
applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not
preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
12. In this case no plausible or convincing explanation could
be offered by the applicant/appellant for gross delay of 960 days i.e.
more than 2 ½ years. The explanation offered is quite vague that
appellant had become sick and could not file the documents with the
appeal. No details are giving as to when he had fallen sick; when did
he recover; from which doctor or institute he was taking treatment;
why he could not send the documents to his counsel through some
4 of 6
RSA-2405-2022(O&M) -5-
other person etc. No medical document in support of these assertions
has been placed on record. Thus in absence of any cogent and
convincing reason, such huge delay in filing of the appeal cannot be
condoned and the appeal is liable to be dismissed being time barred.
13. Even otherwise, on merits also, the appellant does not
have any case. The judgment passed by the trial Court shows non-
application of judicious mind and rather points out towards inability
of the trial Judge to marshal the facts and interpret the law properly.
The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are not
sustainable. Learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib was fully
justified in accepting the appeal and dismissing the suit. The
reasoning given by learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib is quite
apt and appropriate. When as per the own case of plaintiff,
Smt.Pritam Kaur - defendant No.2 had purchased 1/2 share in the
house belonging to defendant No.3 - Jagtar Singh, brother of the
plaintiff, she acquired ownership rights in the house to the extent of
50% and she is justified in asking Nagar Council to enter her name in
the ownership/assessment register to that extent and rather officials
of Nagar Council, Sri Muktsar Sahib are duty bound to enter her
name. The plaintiff is nobody to dictate terms and say that name of
Smt.Pritam Kaur be not entered in the municipal record. If the
plaintiff has got any problem in residing in the house where
defendant No.2 Smt.Pritam Kaur is putting up, he can get his share
5 of 6
RSA-2405-2022(O&M) -6-
partitioned if so advised in accordance with law. As rightly observed
by learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib while disposing of the
appeal that Civil Court has no right to interfere in the working of
municipal council, the plaintiff has not been able to make out a case
for grant of permanent injunction in his favour.
14. There is absolutely no merit in the appeal, as such on
account of being time barred and devoid of merit, the same stands
dismissed.
13.12.2022 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
