RSA No.2229 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 147 RAM SARUP RAM SARUP RAM SARUP RAM SARUP Vs Vs Vs Vs JOGI RAM AND OTHERS JOGI RAM AND OTHERS JOGI RAM AND OTHERS JOGI RAM AND OTHERS CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the appellant. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The plaintiff is in appeal. First appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. parties are referred [2]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal (hereinafter to be referred as the at the instance of appellant 15.12.2016 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal (hereinafter to be referred as the injunction, was dismissed; thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. [3]. A suit for permanent injunction was filed at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff seeking decree of permanent injunction ag respondent(s)/defendant(s), restraining them from forcibly and illegally excavating a water course through the suit land and thereby, destroying the safeda trees of the plaintiff standing thereon. 2023 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. RSA No. RSA No. RSA No.2229 2229 2229 2229 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: JOGI RAM AND OTHERS JOGI RAM AND OTHERS JOGI RAM AND OTHERS JOGI RAM AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The plaintiff is in appeal. First appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. parties are referred to as per their status in the Civil Suit. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal (hereinafter to be referred as the ““““First Appellate First Appellate First Appellate First Appellate at the instance of appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2016 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal (hereinafter to be referred as the ““““trial Court trial Court trial Court trial Court””””)))), dismissing the injunction, was dismissed; thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. A suit for permanent injunction was filed at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff seeking decree of permanent injunction ag respondent(s)/defendant(s), restraining them from forcibly and illegally excavating a water course through the suit land and thereby, destroying the trees of the plaintiff standing thereon. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 2229 2229 2229 2229 of of of of 2023 2023 2023 2023 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: 23 23 23 23.0.0.0.04444.202 .202 .202 .2026666 ...... ...... ...... ......Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent((((ssss)))) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJAAAA The plaintiff is in appeal. First appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. For the sake of convenience, the to as per their status in the Civil Suit. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal First Appellate First Appellate First Appellate First Appellate Court Court Court Court””””), whereby an appeal filed plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2016 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal , dismissing the suit for permanent injunction, was dismissed; thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by A suit for permanent injunction was filed at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff seeking decree of permanent injunction against the respondent(s)/defendant(s), restraining them from forcibly and illegally excavating a water course through the suit land and thereby, destroying the chari crop and 1 The plaintiff is in appeal. First appeal filed by the plaintiff was For the sake of convenience, the By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal ), whereby an appeal filed plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2016 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal suit for permanent injunction, was dismissed; thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by A suit for permanent injunction was filed at the instance of the ainst the respondent(s)/defendant(s), restraining them from forcibly and illegally excavating crop and MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.2229 of 2023 [4]. Upon notice, defendant(s) a preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, limitation, jurisdiction, non also pleaded that the order dated 27.06.1980 p order dated 19.03.1981 of the Superintending Canal Officer, Lining Division, Kaithal were not binding upon the defendants, as they were not parties to the said proceedings before the competent authorities, nor had they express willingness to alter the alignment of the watercourse. On these premises, they, alia, prayed for dismissal of the suit. No replication was filed by the plaintiff. [5]. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: “1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. [6]. The learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 15.12.2016, dismis Issue No. 1 against the plaintiff defendant(s) and thus, were disposed of being not pressed. [7]. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed first appeal, dismissed vide judgment and decree dated Appellate Court. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. 2023 (O&M) Upon notice, defendant(s) appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, limitation, jurisdiction, non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties. It was also pleaded that the order dated 27.06.1980 p order dated 19.03.1981 of the Superintending Canal Officer, Lining Division, Kaithal were not binding upon the defendants, as they were not parties to the said proceedings before the competent authorities, nor had they express willingness to alter the alignment of the watercourse. On these premises, they, , prayed for dismissal of the suit. No replication was filed by the plaintiff. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try thi Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? OPD. Whether the suit is bad for non necessary parties? OPD Relief.” The learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 15.12.2016, dismissed the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff, while deciding Issue No. 1 against the plaintiff. . . . Issue Nos. 2 to 5 were not pressed by the defendant(s) and thus, were disposed of being not pressed. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed first appeal, dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.2022 Appellate Court. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. ppeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, cause of action, joinder of the necessary parties. It was also pleaded that the order dated 27.06.1980 passed by the DCO, Narwana and order dated 19.03.1981 of the Superintending Canal Officer, Lining Division, Kaithal were not binding upon the defendants, as they were not parties to the said proceedings before the competent authorities, nor had they expressed any willingness to alter the alignment of the watercourse. On these premises, they, inter , prayed for dismissal of the suit. No replication was filed by the plaintiff. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? OPD. Whether the suit is bad for non-joining and mis-joining of The learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated sed the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff, while deciding Issue Nos. 2 to 5 were not pressed by the defendant(s) and thus, were disposed of being not pressed. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed first appeal, which was also 16.12.2022 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. 2 ppeared and filed written statement raising cause of action, joinder of the necessary parties. It was assed by the DCO, Narwana and order dated 19.03.1981 of the Superintending Canal Officer, Lining Division, Kaithal were not binding upon the defendants, as they were not parties to the said ed any inter On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the s suit? OPD. joining of The learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated sed the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff, while deciding Issue Nos. 2 to 5 were not pressed by the which was also passed by the learned First MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.2229 of 2023 [8]. Impugning the aforesaid judgments and de below, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the learned Courts below failed to duly consider the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of his claim that no suit land prior to the institution of the suit before the learned trial Court. It was further submitted that, just a day prior to the institution of the suit, the defendants attempted to illegally and forcibly dig a thereby, causing damage to the belonging to the appellant/plaintiff. Thus, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, being contrary to the evidence adduced by the appellant/plaintiff, were liable to be set aside. on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. [9]. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the paper made on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. [10]. A perusa earlier running through the suit land; however, upon an application made by the shareholders, its alignment was ordered to be changed from the suit land to the land comprised in Rect. No. 41, Kill dated 27.06.1980 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana Lining Division No. 3, MITC, Kaithal. The learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.12.2022 even recorded a finding that the watercourse, through the suit land, continued to exist on the date of institution of the suit by the plaintiff and that during the pendency of the suit, he attempted to demolish the same. For reference, relevant para no.24 of the judgment of the Firs Court is being extracted hereunder: 2023 (O&M) Impugning the aforesaid judgments and de below, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the learned Courts below failed to duly consider the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of his claim that no khal suit land prior to the institution of the suit before the learned trial Court. It was further submitted that, just a day prior to the institution of the suit, the defendants attempted to illegally and forcibly dig a khal/water course thereby, causing damage to the chari crop and belonging to the appellant/plaintiff. Thus, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, being contrary to the evidence adduced by the appellant/plaintiff, were liable to be set aside. No other argument has been rai on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the paper-book/records, I am unable to find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. A perusal of the record reveals that, admittedly, a watercourse was earlier running through the suit land; however, upon an application made by the shareholders, its alignment was ordered to be changed from the suit land to the land comprised in Rect. No. 41, Killa Nos. 24, 23, 18, 13, 8 and 13 vide order dated 27.06.1980 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana Lining Division No. 3, MITC, Kaithal. The learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.12.2022 even recorded a finding that the watercourse, through the suit land, continued to exist on the date of institution of the suit by the plaintiff and that during the pendency of the suit, he attempted to demolish the same. For reference, relevant para no.24 of the judgment of the Firs Court is being extracted hereunder:- Impugning the aforesaid judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the learned Courts below failed to duly consider the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by khal/water course ever existed over the suit land prior to the institution of the suit before the learned trial Court. It was further submitted that, just a day prior to the institution of the suit, the defendants /water course through the suit land, crop and safeda trees standing thereon belonging to the appellant/plaintiff. Thus, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, being contrary to the evidence adduced by the No other argument has been rai After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and having gone book/records, I am unable to find substance in the submission(s) l of the record reveals that, admittedly, a watercourse was earlier running through the suit land; however, upon an application made by the shareholders, its alignment was ordered to be changed from the suit land to the a Nos. 24, 23, 18, 13, 8 and 13 vide order dated 27.06.1980 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana Lining Division No. 3, MITC, Kaithal. The learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.12.2022 even recorded a finding that the watercourse, which was running through the suit land, continued to exist on the date of institution of the suit by the plaintiff and that during the pendency of the suit, he attempted to demolish the same. For reference, relevant para no.24 of the judgment of the First Appellate 3 crees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the learned Courts below failed to duly consider the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by ever existed over the suit land prior to the institution of the suit before the learned trial Court. It was further submitted that, just a day prior to the institution of the suit, the defendants through the suit land, trees standing thereon belonging to the appellant/plaintiff. Thus, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, being contrary to the evidence adduced by the No other argument has been raised After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and having gone book/records, I am unable to find substance in the submission(s) l of the record reveals that, admittedly, a watercourse was earlier running through the suit land; however, upon an application made by the shareholders, its alignment was ordered to be changed from the suit land to the a Nos. 24, 23, 18, 13, 8 and 13 vide order dated 27.06.1980 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Narwana Lining Division No. 3, MITC, Kaithal. The learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated which was running through the suit land, continued to exist on the date of institution of the suit by the plaintiff and that during the pendency of the suit, he attempted to demolish the t Appellate MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.2229 of 2023 “24. course which was running through the suit land was still in existence on the date of filing of the present suit by the plain attempted demolition of the same. The plaintiff has sought relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from digging water course in the suit land, however, from aforementioned evidence it is abundant the present suit, the plaintiff only wanted to demolish the existing water course in the suit land.” [11]. Further, both the Courts below have concurrently held that, in the absence of cogent and convincing evidence led by establish that the defendants had attempted to interfere with the suit land, no case was made out in his favour. The appellant/plaintiff failed to substantiate the claim that the defendants attempted to excavate a and damaged the standing crop and or photographic evidence of the alleged occurrence was produced on record by him. [12]. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, there being no misreading of pleadings or any evidence available on record on the part of Courts below, neither any material evidence having lost sight of, the present appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed, upholding the judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below. [13]. All pending application April April April April 23 23 23 23, 202 , 202 , 202 , 2026666 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2023 (O&M) 24. From the entire aforesaid evidence it is proved on the record that the water course which was running through the suit land was still in existence on the date of filing of the present suit by the plain attempted demolition of the same. The plaintiff has sought relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from digging water course in the suit land, however, from aforementioned evidence it is abundant the present suit, the plaintiff only wanted to demolish the existing water course in the suit land.” Further, both the Courts below have concurrently held that, in the absence of cogent and convincing evidence led by establish that the defendants had attempted to interfere with the suit land, no case was made out in his favour. The appellant/plaintiff failed to substantiate the claim that the defendants attempted to excavate a khal and damaged the standing crop and safeda trees, as no complaint to any authority or photographic evidence of the alleged occurrence was produced on record by In view of the discussion made hereinabove, there being no misreading of pleadings or any evidence available on record on the part of Courts below, neither any material evidence having lost sight of, the present appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed, upholding the judgment and decrees passed rts below. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No From the entire aforesaid evidence it is proved on the record that the water course which was running through the suit land was still in existence on the date of filing of the present suit by the plaintiff and during its pendency, plaintiff attempted demolition of the same. The plaintiff has sought relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from digging water course in the suit land, however, from aforementioned evidence it is abundantly clear that in the garb of the present suit, the plaintiff only wanted to demolish the existing water course in Further, both the Courts below have concurrently held that, in the absence of cogent and convincing evidence led by the appellant/plaintiff to establish that the defendants had attempted to interfere with the suit land, no case was made out in his favour. The appellant/plaintiff failed to substantiate the claim khal/water course through the suit land trees, as no complaint to any authority or photographic evidence of the alleged occurrence was produced on record by In view of the discussion made hereinabove, there being no misreading of pleadings or any evidence available on record on the part of Courts below, neither any material evidence having lost sight of, the present appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed, upholding the judgment and decrees passed , if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 4 From the entire aforesaid evidence it is proved on the record that the water course which was running through the suit land was still in existence on the date tiff and during its pendency, plaintiff attempted demolition of the same. The plaintiff has sought relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from digging water course in the suit land, ly clear that in the garb of the present suit, the plaintiff only wanted to demolish the existing water course in Further, both the Courts below have concurrently held that, in the the appellant/plaintiff to establish that the defendants had attempted to interfere with the suit land, no case was made out in his favour. The appellant/plaintiff failed to substantiate the claim rse through the suit land trees, as no complaint to any authority or photographic evidence of the alleged occurrence was produced on record by In view of the discussion made hereinabove, there being no misreading of pleadings or any evidence available on record on the part of Courts below, neither any material evidence having lost sight of, the present appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed, upholding the judgment and decrees passed MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.30 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment