RSA Nos. 1528 and 3012 of 2015 (O&M). Case: Pawan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.. High Court of Punjab (India)

Case NumberRSA Nos. 1528 and 3012 of 2015 (O&M)
CounselFor Appellant: Kamal Sharma, Advocate
JudgesRameshwar Singh Malik, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2; Sections 100, 80
Judgement DateMarch 28, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Punjab (India)


Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

  1. These two identical regular second appeals bearing RSA Nos. 1528 and 3012 of 2015, are being decided together vide this common order, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, as both these appeals are arising out of similar set of facts and are directed against the same impugned judgments and decrees. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from RSA No. 1528 of 2015.

  2. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.9.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, upholding the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.2.2013 of the learned trial court, dismissing their suit for permanent injunction, plaintiffs have approached this Court by way of these two regular second appeals.

  3. Facts necessary for disposal of both these appeals, as noticed by the learned trial court in para 2 of its impugned judgment, are that four plots of land measuring 25 x 36 (100 sq. yards) shown in site plan Annexure-A, measuring 50 x 36 (100 s. yards) shown in the site plan Annexure-B, measuring 25 x 36 (100 sq. yards) was site plan Annexure-C, forming part of khasra No. 188, khewant No. 149, khatoni No. 249, according to jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 relating to Patti Gaddar Kaithal Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal was situated within the revenue estate of the aforesaid Patti and municipal limits of Kaithal, Municipal Kaithal. The suit property shown in site plan Annexure-A was owned and possessed by plaintiff No. 1 vide registered sale deed No. 191/1 dated 17.4.1990, shown in site plan Annexure-B was owned and possessed by plaintiff No. 2 vide registered sale deed No. 189/1 dated 17.4.1990, shown site plans Annexures-C and D were owned and possessed by plaintiff No. 3 vide registered sale deed No. 190/1 dated 17.4.1990 and 1967/1 dated 9.6.1990 registered and attested in the office of S.R. Kaithal on the same day.

  4. Plaintiffs purchased the suit property from Sh. Narender Singh son of Sh. Santokh Singh who was owner in possession of the same at the time of registration of sale deed in the favour of plaintiffs. In March 2009, Municipal Council, Kaithal, was threatening to lay down a sewerage pipe line through the suit property, illegally and unlawfully though it had no right, title or interest to do so and consequently, plaintiffs had to file civil suit No. 49/09 on 4.3.2009 Re: Amar Nath v. M.C. Kaithal, for seeking, a restrain against M.C. Kaithal from interfering into the lawful and peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. In the said suit, vide order dated 9.3.2009, passed by Civil Judge (SD), Kaithal, the parties to the suit were directed to maintain status quo regarding construction over the suit property. Now defendants No. 3 and 4 in collusion with defendant No. 1 and 2 were threatening to pass the electricity supply lines through the suit property illegally and unlawfully by installing pillars and stray wire in the suit property without having any sanctioned plan.

  5. Defendants were served in the suit. They appeared and filed their separate written statements, raising more than one preliminary objections. On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues:-

    1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP

    2) Whether...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT