Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh vs Rattan Chand And Another on 27 January, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011694
110
RSA-561-2019 (O&M)
MAHANT MAHAVIR DASS
V/S
ISHWAR SINGH & ORS
Present: Mr. Sahil Mehra, Advocate for
Mr. Nipun Vashist, Advocate for the appellant.
****
The present appeal pertains to the year 2019. Repeatedly it has
been adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Today, again, a request for an adjournment has been made on behalf of the
arguing counsel for the appellant on the ground that he is unwell.
The learned proxy counsel states that the matter may be kept for Monday
i.e. 03.02.2025 and that the arguing counsel for the appellant would argue
the matter on the adjourned date.
Adjourned to 03.02.2025.
27.01.2025 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 04:04:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011694
113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-2403-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 27.01.2025
Baljit Singh ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Rattan Chand & Anr ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Manoj K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
CM-6430-C-2019
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 10 days in
refiling the appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 10 days in
refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed off.
RSA-2403-2019
3. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgments and decrees dated 29.10.2015
and 07.09.2018 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court,
respectively.
4. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellant herein filed a suit for mandatory as well as permanent injunction
averring therein that the houses shown in green colour in the site plan
attached with the plaint were owned by the plaintiff-appellant and the house
of the defendant-respondents were situated near the house of plaintiff-
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011694
RSA-2403-2019 (O&M) -2-
appellant. A street which was marked as ABCDEFG bifurcates the house of
both the parties which had been brick paved and was a public street. It was
further the case set up that the plaintiff-appellant had been using the street as
approach to both of his houses. It was further the case set up that the
defendant-respondents had encroached upon the street by constructing a
toilet and bathroom at point Marks 'X' and 'Y' and also constructed a wall
at point EF, whereby they blocked the entry of one of the houses of the
plaintiff-appellant from the street side. The matter was reported to the Gram
Panchayat who held the matter in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Hence,
the suit. Defendant-respondent No.1 filed written statement raising various
preliminary objections. On merits it was stated that the street marked as
ABCDEFG was owned and possessed by the defendant-respondents and the
plaintiff-appellant had no concern with the same. It was further averred that
the area marked as ABCDEFG was owned and possessed by defendant-
respondent No.1 - Rattan Chand - for the last more than 60 years and that
the Gram Panchayat was never in possession of any portion of the suit
property. Similar written statement was filed by defendant-respondent No.2.
On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to
bring and file the present suit ? OPD
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011694
RSA-2403-2019 (O&M) -3-
5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court
with clean hands ? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to
bring and file the present suit ? OPD
7. Whether the site plan is incorrect ? OPD
8. Whether the present suit is undervalued for the
purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD
9. Whether the present suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties ? OPD
10. Relief
3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree
dated 29.10.2015. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before
the First Appellate Court which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment
and decree dated 07.09.2018. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that both the
Courts have erred in dismissing his suit. It is urged that the street was the
only access to the house of the plaintiff-appellant and that since the street
had been encroached, the access to the house of the plaintiff-appellant was
blocked and therefore the suit deserved to be decreed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.
6. In the present case both the Courts concurrently found that no
document had been produced on the record by the plaintiff-appellant or even
by the Panchayat Members who were examined by the plaintiff-appellant to
show that the portion alleged to have been encroached upon was ever used
for the public. It was further found that there was no date on which the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011694
RSA-2403-2019 (O&M) -4-
alleged construction is stated to have been made. Even the Aks Shajra
produced on the record by the defendant-respondents as Ex.D2 and the
jamabandi for the year 2011-12 as Ex.D3 reveal that the properties fell in a
khasra number and there was no public passage as had been alleged by the
plaintiff-appellant. In the absence of any cogent evidence having been led by
the plaintiff-appellant to show that the passage was a public passage which
had been encroached upon by the defendant-respondents, no fault can be
found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. No other
point was argued.
7. In view of the above, no question of law, much less any
substantial question of law, arises in the present case. The appeal being
devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed off.
27.01.2025 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
5 of 5
