Sohan Singh vs Anil Mohindru And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 21805 P&H

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 21805 P&H
Judgement Date : 13 December, 2023

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sohan Singh vs Anil Mohindru And Anr on 13 December, 2023

Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta

Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160719




                                         2023:PHHC:160719
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH


                                                 RSA No.879 of 2019
                                                 Date of Decision: 13.12.2023

Sohan Singh
                                                                       ...Appellant

                                     Versus

Anil Mohindru and another
                                                                   ...Respondents


CORAM:        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Argued by:- Mr. Sachin Kalia, Advocate appearing for
            Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate
            for the appellant.
                                   *****
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar (for short 'the trial Court')

on 06.11.2017, whereby the Civil Suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff (here-

in-after to be referred as 'the plaintiff') for seeking a decree for permanent

injunction to restrain respondent-defendant No.1 and his family members from

raising the construction on the suit property illegally and in contravention of the

bye-laws of respondent-defendant No.2-Corporation, with the further prayer for

grant of the relief of mandatory injunction, by way of directing defendant No.2

to demolish the unlawful construction raised by defendant No.1 and his family

members on the said property, has been dismissed as well as by the judgment

and decree rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar (for short

'the Lower Appellate Court') on 26.09.2018, dismissing the appeal filed by the

plaintiff to assail the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2017, he (plaintiff) has

preferred the instant Regular Second Appeal to lay challenge to the same.




                                    1 of 3

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160719




RSA No.879 of 2019                            -2-               2023:PHHC:160719

2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff

in the present appeal, at the preliminary stage and have also gone through the

file carefully.

3. Concededly, the house of the plaintiff adjoins the plot/property

of defendant No.1 and he (plaintiff) has averred that he had given his consent

for the sanction of the site-plan in respect of the plot of defendant No.1, by

defendant No.2-Corporation and at that time, defendant No.1 had assured him

that he would construct the basement in his plot at a distance from the

backside wall of his (plaintiff's) house but however, he (defendant No.1)

started digging the land under/beneath the afore-said back wall and raised the

construction in his plot, in violation of the bye-laws of defendant No.2 and

also in contravention of the sanctioned site-plan.

4. Admittedly, defendant No.2 had issued the notice to defendant

No.1 under Section 279 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 for

the removal of unauthorized construction as raised by him in his plot and had

also issued another notice under Section 270 of the said Act, directing him

therein to stop further construction at the spot. The trial Court and the Lower

Appellate Court have categorically observed in Paras No.14 in their respective

judgments that DW1 Tejpreet Singh, Municipal Town Planner, had submitted

his affidavit in the Contempt Petition, as moved by the plaintiff in this Court,

deposing therein that the unauthorized construction, raised by defendant No.1,

had been demolished and the remaining construction, as existing at the spot,

was well within the compoundable limits of the municipal bye-laws. It being

so, it is explicit that the cause of action did not survive in the favour of the

plaintiff to seek the relief, as prayed for in the above-referred Civil Suit.





                                     2 of 3

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160719




RSA No.879 of 2019                           -3-              2023:PHHC:160719

5. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the

impugned judgments and decrees, as handed down by both the Courts below,

do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity or perversity, so as to

warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the same are upheld and

the Regular Second Appeal in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed.





13.12.2023                                         (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
neetu                                                    JUDGE

                    Whether speaking/reasoned:         Yes
                    Whether Reportable:                Yes




                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160719

                                    3 of 3