Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Pritam Singh on 14 March, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037273
RSA-2487-1996 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037273 --1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
213
RSA-2487-1996 (O&M)
Date of decision : 14.03.2024
State of Punjab ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Pritam Singh and Others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Ms. Vikas Suman Chaudhary, DAG Punjab.
Respondents No.1 and 2 already proceeded ex parte
vide order dated 28.04.1997.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State challenging
the judgments and decrees dated 17.12.1994 and 09.04.1996 passed by the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondents herein filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the
State of Punjab and Sub-Divisional Officer, Karhali Sub Division, Patiala
from dispossessing them from the suit land without following the due
process of law. The plaintiff-respondents pleaded that they had been in
possession as tenants for about 25-30 years and that they had improved the
land by spending huge amount. Notice was issued to the appellant-State.
They contested the suit raising preliminary objections regarding cause of
action and suit being false and frivolous. On merits, it was denied that the
plaintiff-respondents were in possession as tenants. It was further averred
that the appellant-State was in possession.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037273
RSA-2487-1996 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037273 --2--
3. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction
prayed for ? OPD
2. Relief.
4. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree
dated 17.12.1994. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the
appellant-State which appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court
vide judgment and decree dated 09.04.1996. Hence, the present regular
second appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-State would contend that the
suit was filed without issuance of a notice under Section 80 of the Code of
Civil Procedure and hence the suit ought to have been dismissed. It is further
the contention of the learned State counsel that there was no mention about
the rent paid by the plaintiff-respondents.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-State.
7. In the present case, both the Courts concurrently found that
alongwith the suit an application was filed under Section 80(2) CPC seeking
permission to file the suit without notice as the matter was of an urgent and
immediate nature. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court. The
same argument was raised before the First Appellate Court where also it was
rejected on the ground that the Court proceeded with the suit which was filed
alongwith an application under Section 80(2) CPC and even allowed
temporary injunction.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has not been able to
show how the findings qua possession are erroneous. Both the Courts have
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037273
RSA-2487-1996 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:037273 --3--
held that the present case is a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction based
on possession. The possession of the plaintiff-respondents is apparent from
the revenue entries consisting of jamabandis for the year 1967 to 1988 and
Khasra Girdawari and there were also rent receipts of the year 1972
onwards. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-State
that no rent was paid deserves to be rejected. There is not an iota of evidence
on the record to show that the possession was ever taken from the plaintiff-
respondents. No other point was argued.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present
appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises
in the present case. The regular second appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
14.03.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Ankur JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037273
3 of 3
