Sukhdeep Singh vs Ashwani Khanna
2024 Latest Caselaw 8715 P&H

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

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055840

CR-7894-2017(O&M) 2024:PHHC:055840

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