IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 217-I Jasprit Kaur and another Sandeep Singh and others 217-II Prabjhkirat Singh and another Jagtar Singh and others CORAM: Present:- RSA-1368 of 2001 and CWP-10095- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1368 of 2001 Date of decision :-07.08.2025 Jasprit Kaur and another Versus Sandeep Singh and others Civil Writ Petition No.10095 of 2016 Prabjhkirat Singh and another Versus Jagtar Singh and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Vidushi Kumar, Advocate Mr. Bhuvnesh, Advocate and Mrs. Seema, Rani, Advocate for the petitioners (in CR-10095 for respondent No.2 (in RSA Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, AAG Punjab. None for the appellants (in RSA Service upon respondents No.3 to 10 dispensed with (vide order dated 20.08.2001 in RSA -2016 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1368 of 2001 (O & M) .2025 …..Appellants …..Respondents Civil Writ Petition No.10095 of 2016 (O & M) …..Petitioners …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Vidushi Kumar, Advocate Mr. Bhuvnesh, Advocate and Mrs. Seema, Rani, Advocate 10095-2016) and for respondent No.2 (in RSA-1368-2001). Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, AAG Punjab. None for the appellants (in RSA-1368-2001). Service upon respondents No.3 to 10 dispensed with (vide order dated 20.08.2001 in RSA-1368-2001). VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.13 21.14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) connected, therefore, vide this co being disposed of. 2001, on the last date of hearing i.e. 08.4.2025 fresh notices were issued to the appellants and respondent No.1 (in RSA The office rep remain unserved available service upon the appellants through the SHO concerned. appellants/plaintiffs before this Court are the LRs plaintiff No.2, against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the civil suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction was dismissed by both the Courts below. No.2 (in RSA Petition No.10095 Jagroop Singh (Annexure P interest/father of the present respondent/defendants possession of the present suit land. In the said suit, consent decree dated 31.3.1984 was passed Jagroop Singh and the present defenda accordingly the present Civil Suit No.677 of 10.5.1991 filed by the plaintiff Jagroop Singh and Harpal Singh for permanent injunction RSA-1368 of 2001 and CWP-10095- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Since both the aforementioned matters are inter connected, therefore, vide this common order both of the matters are being disposed of. The present regular second appeal being of the year 2001, on the last date of hearing i.e. 08.4.2025 fresh notices were issued to the appellants and respondent No.1 (in RSA The office report has been received, as per which, the said appellants remain unserved as the complete particulars of the address were not despite the fact that the Registry was directed service upon the appellants through the SHO concerned. ellants/plaintiffs before this Court are the LRs plaintiff No.2, against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the civil suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction was dismissed by both the Courts below. It is submitted by learned Senior C No.2 (in RSA-1368-2001) and petitioners in the connected Civil Writ Petition No.10095-2016 that previously the original plaintiff Jagroop Singh had filed the Civil Suit No.20 dated 14.1.1981 (Annexure P-1 with the writ petition) interest/father of the present respondent/defendants possession of the present suit land. In the said suit, consent decree dated 31.3.1984 was passed as the matter stood compromised between Jagroop Singh and the present defenda accordingly the present Civil Suit No.677 of 10.5.1991 filed by the plaintiff Jagroop Singh and Harpal Singh for permanent injunction -2016 (O & M) -2- Since both the aforementioned matters are inter- mmon order both of the matters are The present regular second appeal being of the year 2001, on the last date of hearing i.e. 08.4.2025 fresh notices were issued to the appellants and respondent No.1 (in RSA-1368-2001). ort has been received, as per which, the said appellants as the complete particulars of the address were not despite the fact that the Registry was directed to effect service upon the appellants through the SHO concerned. The ellants/plaintiffs before this Court are the LRs of the original plaintiff No.2, against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the civil suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction was dismissed by both the Courts below. Senior Counsel for respondent 2001) and petitioners in the connected Civil Writ that previously the original plaintiff No.1 had filed the Civil Suit No.20 dated 14.1.1981 against the predecessor-in- interest/father of the present respondent/defendants seeking possession of the present suit land. In the said suit, consent decree the matter stood compromised between Jagroop Singh and the present defendants. It is submitted that accordingly the present Civil Suit No.677 of 10.5.1991 filed by the plaintiff Jagroop Singh and Harpal Singh for permanent injunction VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.13 21.14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document was dismissed by the learned trial Court keeping in view the fact that the plaintiff could not in view of Lower Appellate Court upheld the said judgment and decree dated 30.8.1997 appeal. no merit in the present case of civil court decree dated 31.3.1984 (Ex.D Counsel, on instructions, further submits that howev has now changed hands many times over with the passage of time. and the writ petition 31.3.1984. connected matter(s). August 07 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No RSA-1368 of 2001 and CWP-10095- was dismissed by the learned trial Court keeping in view the fact that the plaintiff could not raise the same cause of action in a fresh suit and of the previous decree dated 31.3.1984 Lower Appellate Court upheld the said judgment and decree dated 30.8.1997 of the learned trial Court. Hence, the present regular second Learned Senior Counsel accordingly submits that there is no merit in the present case as the same is not maintainable by virtue of civil court decree dated 31.3.1984 (Ex.D Counsel, on instructions, further submits that howev has now changed hands many times over with the passage of time. Heard. Keeping in view the above said facts the present appeal and the writ petition stand disposed of in terms of the decree dated 31.3.1984. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. Photocopy of this order be placed in the file(s) of connected matter(s). 7, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No -2016 (O & M) -3- was dismissed by the learned trial Court keeping in view the fact that raise the same cause of action in a fresh suit and evious decree dated 31.3.1984 Ex.D-21. The learned Lower Appellate Court upheld the said judgment and decree dated ence, the present regular second Learned Senior Counsel accordingly submits that there is as the same is not maintainable by virtue of civil court decree dated 31.3.1984 (Ex.D-21). Learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, further submits that however the suit land has now changed hands many times over with the passage of time. Keeping in view the above said facts the present appeal disposed of in terms of the decree dated any, shall stands disposed of. Photocopy of this order be placed in the file(s) of ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.13 21.14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document