[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjit Singh (Since Deceased) ... vs Khushwant Rai @ Shinda Grover on 14 January, 2026
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
118
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-4926-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 14.01.2026
INDERJIT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS .... Appellants
VERSUS
KHUSHWANT RAI @ SHINDA GROVER .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. K.S. Lakhanpal, Advocate for
Mr. Arunjeet Singh Kakkar, Advocate for the appellants.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-
appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2018 passed by
the learned Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2019 passed
by the learned First Appellate Court.
2. Briefly, the facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellants herein filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the
defendants therein (respondent herein and one Subhash Kumar-defendant
No.2) from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-appellants
over the shop measuring 20' x 22'6" as fully described in the plaint.
Counterclaim was filed by defendant No.1 (respondent herein) also claiming
permanent injunction for restraining the plaintiff-appellants from interfering
in his peaceful possession of the same shop on the ground that he was in
possession of the shop. The case set up by the plaintiff-appellants was that
RSA-4926-2019 (O&M) -2-
originally the Municipal Council, Faridkot was the owner of the shop and that
the plaintiff-appellants were tenants of the Municipal Council, Faridkot for
the last 70 years. It was further the case set up that the father of the plaintiff-
appellants was a tenant and in possession of the shop in question. The
plaintiff-appellants had regularly been paying the rent/teh bazari to the
Municipal Council, Faridkot till date. It was further the case that the plaintiff-
appellants had no dispute with the Municipal Council, Faridkot and that the
defendants have no concern with the disputed shop. However, the defendants
want to dispossess the plaintiff-appellants from the shop in dispute. Hence the
suit by the plaintiff-appellants for restraining the defendants from interfering
in their possession.
3. On notice, defendant No.1 (respondent herein) appeared through
counsel and filed his written statement raising various preliminary objections
including that the plaintiff-appellants have not approached the Court with
clean hands. It was the case set up that defendant No.1 (respondent herein)
and the plaintiff-appellants were running the shop jointly and that the shop
was taken on rent in the name of the plaintiff-appellants. On 02.05.2011 they
separated their business and the plaintiff-appellants left the shop and
defendant No.1 (respondent herein) remained in possession of the shop alone.
It was further the case that the plaintiff-appellants had sworn an affidavit dated
02.05.2011 and also moved an application to the Executive Officer, Municipal
Council, Faridkot for changing the tenancy in the name of defendant No.1
(respondent herein). It was further the stand that defendant No.2 had no
concern with the shop in dispute and that he had been impleaded
RSA-4926-2019 (O&M) -3-
unnecessarily. On merits it was admitted that the shop was in the ownership
of the Municipal Council, Faridkot which was on rent in the name of the
plaintiff-appellants. The facts as narrated in the preliminary objections were
reiterated. It was further the case set up in the counterclaim that the plaintiff-
appellants forcibly want to dispossess defendant No.1 (respondent herein)
under the garb of the present suit. Written statement was filed to the
counterclaim of defendant No.1 (respondent herein).
4. Replication was filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the following issues were framed :
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent
injunction, as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff has not come to the Court with
clean hands and concealed the material facts? OPP
5. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present
form? OPD
5-A. Whether counter claimant is entitled to decree of
permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPCC
6. Relief.
5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dared 20.02.2018
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants and decreed the counterclaim of
defendant No.1 (respondent herein) for permanent injunction restraining the
plaintiff-appellants from interfering and dispossessing defendant No.1
(respondent herein) from the shop in dispute illegally and forcibly except in
due course of law. Aggrieved by the same, two appeals were preferred by the
RSA-4926-2019 (O&M) -4-
plaintiff-appellants challenging the dismissal of the suit and the decreeing of
the counterclaim. Both the said appeals were dismissed by the learned First
Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.05.2019. The present
regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellants, as per the
opening sheet, only against the dismissal of their suit. No appeal has been
preferred challenging the counterclaim being decreed.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants, on a query put by
the Court as to whether any appeal had been preferred challenging the
judgment and decree allowing the counterclaim, has candidly admitted that
the present appeal has been filed only challenging the dismissal of the suit of
the plaintiff-appellants and there is no challenge to the decree passed allowing
the counterclaim.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants would contend that
the plaintiff-appellants have been in possession of the shop and they had
regularly been paying the rent and therefore their possession was duly proved.
It is further contended that both the Courts have erred in dismissing the suit
of the plaintiff-appellants.
8. Heard.
9. In the present case a suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellants and
a counterclaim was filed by defendant No.1 (respondent herein), both for
permanent injunction. Plaintiff-appellants had filed the suit for permanent
injunction claiming themselves to be in possession and from restraining the
defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff-appellants from the shop in
dispute. Defendant No.1 (respondent herein) had filed the counterclaim
RSA-4926-2019 (O&M) -5-
claiming that he was in possession of the shop in dispute and for restraining
the plaintiff-appellants from dispossessing defendant No.1 (respondent
herein). Admittedly, the counterclaim was decreed and the appeal challenging
the same was dismissed. Since no appeal has been preferred before this Court
challenging the judgment and decree to the extent the counterclaim was
decreed, the plaintiff-appellants possibly cannot succeed in the present appeal
as he has accepted the fate of the decree passed qua the counterclaim. Further
still, both the Courts have concurrently found that the plaintiff-appellants were
not in possession of the shop in dispute. Father of the plaintiff-appellants had
given an affidavit (Ex.D1) dated 02.05.2011 stating therein that the shop in
dispute had come to the share of Khushwant Rai [defendant No.1 (respondent
herein)]. He had also moved an application before the Executive Officer,
Municipal Council, Faridkot regarding the transfer of tenancy in the name of
Khushwant Rai [defendant No.1 (respondent herein)]. The defendant No.1
(respondent herein) had proved on record the signatures of Inderjit Singh
(father of the plaintiff-appellants) on Ex.DW5/C which was the application
moved before the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Faridkot. The
defendant No.1 (respondent herein) also examined DW2 Anil Kumar Gupta
who proved on the record that the affidavit (Ex.D1) bears the signatures of
Inderjit Singh (father of the plaintiff-appellants). There was no explanation
forthcoming as to why the affidavit was given and as to why the application
was filed before the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Faridkot for
transfer of the tenancy in the name of defendant No.1 (respondent herein).
Even before this Court, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has been
RSA-4926-2019 (O&M) -6-
unable to show the possession of the plaintiff-appellants over the shop in
dispute.
10. 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 appeal, being devoid of any merits, is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
14.01.2026 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
