Gurpartap Singh vs Ranjeet Singh And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 20189 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurpartap Singh vs Ranjeet Singh And Ors on 13 November, 2024

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147765


RSA-585-2022(O&M)                                                 -1-

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH
(119)
                                                       RSA-585-2022(O&M)
                                                 Date of Decision:-13.11.2024

Gurpartap Singh
                                                               ......Appellant

                                     Versus

Ranjeet Singh and others
                                                             ......Respondents

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN

                    ****

Present:      Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

                    ****

ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff

against the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2020 passed by the Additional

Civil Judge (Senior Division) Assandh, Karnal, whereby, the suit for

permanent injunction with respect to the rasta abutting the land forming a

part of khewat No.3321/3329, khatoni no.4568, rectangle no.138, killa

no.13(8-1), 18(8-0), 23(7-5),rectangle no.165, killa no.2(8-10), filed by the

appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed and the appeal filed against the

aforesaid judgment and decree has also been dismissed vide judgment and

decree dated 04.02.2022 passed by the District Judge, Karnal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has vehemently

argued that the trial Court despite proceeding the respondents against ex

parte dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove his

possession over the suit property. However, an application under Section

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147765

RSA-585-2022(O&M) -2-

41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the appellant to place on record additional

documents (Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-17) showing his possession, was allowed. He

submits that the learned First Appellate Court has also dismissed his appeal

despite he be the true owner in possession of his property.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and have

gone through the record.

4. The Courts below had rightly held that although the plaintiff-

appellant is in possession of the suit property, however, virtually the present

suit is for claiming rasta in straight line in Western side of Killa No.13, 18

& 23 and after Killa No.23 passing through Killa No.165//2. However the

land falling in Killa No.165//2 is not owned by the plaintiff and the

petitioner is claiming straight rasta in Kill No.165//2 also. Nevertheless,

the rasta alleged by the appellant-plaintiff is not depicted in the revenue

record.

5. In the light of the above, I have not found any ground to

interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

6. Dismissed.

7. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed

of.

(ALOK JAIN) JUDGE November 13, 2024.

monika

Whether speaking/reasoned:-      Yes/No
Whether Reportable:-             Yes/No




                                 2 of 2