Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S D.S. Sanitary And Hardware Store vs Haryana Urban Development Authority on 14 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005239
RSA-722-2023 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-722-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 14.01.2025
M/s D.S.Sanitary & Hardware Store
...... Appellant
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority
...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
***
Present : Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate
for the appellant.
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
CM-2774-C-2023
Prayer in the present application filed under Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, is for condonation of delay of 43 days in re-filing the
accompanying appeal.
Heard.
For the reasons, mentioned in the application which is duly
supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 43 days in re-
filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
CM-2775-C-2023
Prayer in the present application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 07 days in filing the
accompanying appeal.
Heard.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005239
For the reasons, mentioned in the application which is duly
supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 07 days in filing
the accompanying appeal is condoned.
RSA-722-2023 (O&M)
This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated
15.09.2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge,
Faridabad, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the
judgment and decree dated 12.07.2017, passed by the Court of learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide which the suit filed by the appellant-
plaintiff for mandatory injunction with consequential relief of permanent
injunction was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to
as per their original status.
3. The plaintiff (M/s D.S.Sanitary & Hardware Store) filed a suit for
mandatory injunction restraining the defendant (Haryana Urban Development
Authority) from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and
smooth running of its business in shop-booth No.14 measuring 35.75 square
yards situated at Shopping Centre, Sector 28, HUDA Market, Faridabad
(hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') and from dispossessing the
plaintiff or demolishing the suit property or alienating the same. The case set
up by the plaintiff was that the suit property was owned and possessed by
Vijaypal Chaprana and Vedpal Chaprana, brothers of the proprietor of the
plaintiff Satpal Chaprana and that they had handed over the possession of the
disputed property to Satpal Chaprana for the last many years and he had been
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005239
running his business therein. The suit property was stated to be originally
owned by one Sushila Devi to whom it had been allotted by the respondent vide
allotment letter dated 30.11.1988. She appointed one Bir Singh as her general
power of attorney who further sold the disputed property to the brothers of
Satpal Chaprana. All relevant papers were signed. After purchasing the
disputed property, the brothers of Satpal Chaprana handed over the actual and
physical possession of the disputed property to Satpal Chaprana and he had
been running the business in the said property ever since then. Upon an
application having been moved by the brothers of the plaintiff for knowing the
outstanding amount qua the suit property, the defendant, instead of supplying
the details, started threatening the plaintiff to vacate the disputed property. It
was averred that the disputed property had been illegally resumed vide order
dated 20.01.1998 and subsequently, notice under Section 18 (1) of the Haryana
Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short 'the HUDA Act') was
issued in the name of the allottee. Under the circumstances, the suit was filed.
4. The suit was opposed by the defendant. Certain preliminary
objections regarding maintainability, locus-standi, cause of action etc. were
raised. It was also averred that the disputed property had been resumed on
20.01.1998 and the allottee had also been informed as regards the said
resumption. It was also averred that the possession of the suit property had to
be taken and sealing had to be done for which the proceedings had been
initiated. On merits also, a similar stand was taken.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent
injunction, as prayed for ? OPP
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005239
1-A Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory
injunction as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the
present form ? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and no cause of
action to file the present suit ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has filed the present suit only to harass
and to humiliate the defendant ? OPD
5. Relief.
6. Parties led their respective evidence.
7. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and the
appeal filed against the said decision was also dismissed, leading to the filing of
the present regular second appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also
perused the record which was duly summoned.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgments
passed by the Courts below are not sustainable as the plaintiff is in possession
of the suit property. He further submits that despite cogent evidence having
been led to prove his case, the Courts below non-suited the plaintiff.
10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
appellant. The first and foremost issue is that the appellant-plaintiff has not
placed on record any document to show as to how he came into possession of
the suit property. It has also not been shown as to whether he was a licencee or
a transferee or a lessee. Further, no document was produced on record to show
the ownership and possession of the brothers of the plaintiff namely Vijay Pal
Chaprana and Vedpal Chaprana over the suit property. Admittedly, allotment
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005239
of the suit property was made in favour of one Sushila Devi. As per the record
produced by the defendant, a sum of `6,58,900/- was outstanding as on
20.01.1998 and many notices Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 were issued but the outstanding
amount was not paid. Ultimately, the property was resumed vide order dated
20.01.1998. It also came on record that an appeal had also been filed against
the resumption order by the power of attorney holder of Sushila Devi which
was also dismissed in default on 14.05.1998 (Ex.D5). The suit property was
never transferred in favour of the plaintiff. The resumption order had attained
finality. The plaintiff was not able to prove that his brothers were the owners in
possession of the suit property and was also not able to produce any document
to show his ownership or possession over the suit property. Hence, the Courts
below did not commit any illegality in rejecting his claim. This Court has no
hesitation in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff was totally frivolous and
was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Courts below. No occasion at all arises
for interfering in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts
below.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
14.01.2025
mamta
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
