IN THE HI 107 Jaskaran Sin Gurdev Singh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA concurrent whereby t respondent/ 2. injunction r towards the plaintiff show No.563/1, K District Sri M illegally and judgment an Judge (Junio first Appellat E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Singh Vs. Singh HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. B.S. Aulakh, Advocate for the appellant. *** UPTA, J. The defendant is in judgments and decree passed b the suit for permanent ent/plaintiff has been decreed. The respondent/plaintiff h n restraining the defendant fro the private street of the plaintiff wh shown in the site plan as ABCD and 1, Khata No.753/1142 area of vill ri Muktsar Sahib, vide copy of Jama and forcibly without once for all. Th t and decree dated 20.02.2018 p unior Division), Malout; which was ellate Court/District Judge, Sri Mukt p. 1 D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-5614-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA ate second appeal against the ed by the learned Courts below t injunction filed by the iff had filed a suit for permanent from installing/opening gate f which leads to the house of the and in Pink Colour under Khasra village Channu, Tehsil Malout, Jamabandi for the year 2014-15, The said suit was decreed vide 18 passed by the learned Civil as duly affirmed by the learned ktsar Sahib vide judgment and 8 SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document decree dated appellant/de 3. that in passin to appreciate in the suit r that the plain in Khasra No plaintiff show 4. constructed by the Cour failed to app street which every right to the impugne the evidence Reliance has appellant/de documentary 5. 6. perused the ated 12.04.2019 passed in CA No.3 t/defendant. Learned counsel for the assing the impugned judgments, the ciate that the revenue record is con uit regarding the identification of t plaintiff/respondent had filed the su a No.563/1 whereas the revenue rec shows the same is situated in differe It is further submitted ted the street in dispute but incorre Courts below regarding the same. appreciate that the government u hich was meant for public; and th ht to use the said street. The learne ugned judgments in a very casual m ence. Undue weightage has been g has been wrongly placed upon th t/defendant who is a rustic village ntary evidence which has resulted in No other argument is raise I have heard learned cou the case file in great detail. Page 2 of 8 No.34 of 02.04.2018 filed by the he appellant inter alia submits , the learned Courts below failed contrary to the pleadings made of the property. It is submitted he suit regarding property vested e record placed on record by the fferent Khasra No.563/3. ed that the Government has orrect inference has been drawn me. The learned Courts below nt used to construct the public d therefore, the appellant had arned Courts below have passed al manner without appreciating en given to the oral statements. n the cross-examination of the lager while not appreciating the ed in miscarriage of justice. aised on behalf of the appellant. counsel for the appellant and 8 SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. set out in th which falls in Jamabandi a submitted th plaintiff from The said str domestic use the land of h than 40 year street since house of the main gate of fully shown the private defendant il the private s no right. Plai of his house been avoidin has refused for permane Briefly stated the case of in the plaint is that since long, he s in the Khasra No. 563/1. To this di and rough site plan are also at d that there is a private street whi from main road shown in the pink treet is private street which is c use only and the plaintiff left the of his ownership which is running years without any hindrance and t ince its inception for ingress and f the defendant is adjoining to the te of the house of the defendant op wn in the rough site plan. The def ate street shown as ABCD. Now w nt illegally, forcibly intended to ins te street of the plaintiff shown in p Plaintiff requested the defendant n use in the suit street illegally and fo oiding the matter on one pretext or sed to admit the claim of the plain anent injunction was filed by the re p. 3 e of the respondent/plaintiff as he is resident of the suit house this effect Aks Shijra as well as o attached. It has been further which leads to the home of the ink colour and marked as ABCD. is kept by the plaintiff for his the said area of the street from ning at the spot since last more nd the plaintiff is using the said nd outgress to his house. The the house of the plaintiff. The t opened towards the main road defendant has no concern with w with his ulterior motive the o install/open the gate towards in pink colour for which he has nt not to install/open main gate d forcibly but the defendant has xt or the other and ultimately he plaintiff. Hence, the present suit e respondent/plaintiff. 8 SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. appearance the street in on the dispu street. A rep averments m 9. issues were f fo 10. the same lo copy of Aks photographs examined hi closed his ev 11. the street in government Upon notice, the appell nce and filed written statement int t in dispute is a public street and p isputed street and that the plaint replication was filed by the respo ts made in the written statement. On the basis of pleading ere framed:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitle as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is form?OPD 3. Whether plaintiff has neither standi to file the present suit ?OPD 4. Relief” The four prosecution witn e locality corroborated the version Aksh Sijra (Ex.P2), site plan (Ex.P aphs (Mark A and B) were prove d himself as DW1; and examined is evidence. It has been contended on et in dispute is Public Street as ent funds. However, it has to be no p. 4 pellant/defendant had put in t inter alia pleading therein that nd public money has been used laintiff has no concern with the espondent/plaintiff denying the dings and evidence, following ntitled for permanent injunction iff is not maintainable in present ither cause of action nor locus ?OPD witnesses including residents of sion of the plaint. The certified (Ex.P3), Jamabandi (Ex.P4) and oven on record. The appellant ined Ranjit Singh as DW2 and on behalf of the appellant that as it has been constructed by e noted that the learn trial court 8 SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document in the judgm his cross-exa fu fil dgment dated 20.2.2018 has record examination has admitted that: “16....However, in his cross-exami ownership of his land is still in further admitted that iron ga photograph at Mark A, is install admitted that one portion of the mettled road. He further submitte leads to the house of the plainti admitted that the whole estate i vested in plaintiff Gurdev Singh a He further admitted that street in his ownership. He further admitte file any document through which in question is public street. He fu not know whether any writing iss or not. ………… 17. The nature of the street in qu the defendant. Defendant is als question has no street with land admitted that his land has other installed abutted to main me photograph Mark A the plea of Thus, if the street in question on plaintiff then no other person ex same. Moreover, defendant admit that he cannot tell whether the s private. This fact is also goes into defendant already have its gate gate. This fact is also admitted p. 5 orded that even the appellant in xamination he admitted that the ll in the name of his father. He n gate which shown in the alled in their land. He further f their land is abutted to some mitted that the street in question laintiff Gurdev Singh. He further ate including land and house, is gh after the death of Surjit Kaur. et in question is not with land of mitted that he has not placed on hich it can be proved that street e further admitted that he does g issued by Panchayat is correct in question is also not known to s also admitting that street in and of his ownership. He further other passage and already gate mettled road. Further from a of plaintiff got strengthened. n only leads to the house of the on except plaintiff has right the dmitted in his cross-examination the street in question is public or s into favour of the plaintiff that gate/ passage abutted to main itted that since his child hood, 8 SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. the appellan vide the im following fin Ja plaintiff is residing in the same h in opening the gate in the private would amount direct interferenc therefore, the case is made out Further if no injunction is grant irreparable loss which cannot be money.” The aforesaid judgment an llant before the learned District Jud impugned judgment and decree findings: - “19. Defendant Jaskaran Singh witness box as DW1 has admitt that street in question is not on th has further admitted that his lan had already installed gate which road. The defendant has not s street in question is a private str could not tell whether the stre private. He has categorically state had not placed on judicial file proves that street in dispute is a stated that it was correct that Panch etc. could disclose whethe He has admitted that he enter shown in Photograph which is Ma side of the street. So from sta Jaskaran Singh it is evident that p. 6 me house. If defendant succeeds vate street by the plaintiff then it rence in the house of plaintiff, out in favour of the plaintiff. ranted then plaintiff will suffer ot be compensated in terms of t and decree was challenged by t Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, which ree dated 12.4.2019, gave the Singh while stepping into the mitted in his cross-examination on the land of his ownership. He s land has other passage and he hich is abutting to main mettled ot specifically denied that the te street and has stated that he street in question is public or stated that it was correct that he file any such document which is a public street. He has further hat only Sarpanch, Nambardar, ether street is private or public. nters in his plot through gate is Mark A and also through back statement of DW1 defendant that the gate of his house opens 8 SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fo fa on the mettled road and thus he for entering in his house, which case of the plaintiff, that the s street of the plaintiff that had ownership for his personal use. 20.Much emphasis has been laid the appellant that plaintiff and h that the street in question had Government with the Governmen public street. No doubt, the plain admitted the above said fact tha paved by the Government with DW2 Ranjit Singh, who is Ex-Sarp is a witness of defendant has ca cross-examination it to be c Government policy, all the stre public streets and the private stre Government. So if the street in qu by the Government as per the G inference from it can be drawn th public street. So far as opening houses in the street in quest specifically stated by the plaintiff are no other houses in the str relatives of plaintiff Gurdev Sing specifically named any other suc falls in the street in dispute and w Gurdev Singh. He has admitted in correct that he had not mentioned whom he had disclosed in his affid situated in the same street. He p. 7 s he is having the other passage hich lends corroboration to the he street in question is private had been left by him from his laid down by learned counsel for nd his witnesses have admitted had been brick-paved by the nment funds and as such it is a plaintiff and his witnesses have t that the street had been brick- ith the Government funds, but Sarpanch of village Channu and as categorically admitted in his e correct, that as per the streets of the village whether streets, were brick-paved by the in question had been brick-paved the Government policy, then no n that the street in question is a ing of the doors of some other uestion is concerned, it was ntiff and his witnesses that there e street in dispute except the Singh. The defendant has not r such person whose house also nd who is not relative of plaintiff ed in his cross-examination to be ioned the name of the person, to affidavit Ex.DA,, whose house is . He has also admitted it to be 8 SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13. controvert or Courts below. present appea 14. appeal is of t matter. Presen the appellant appearance o 07.05.2024. 15. 16. 09.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo correct that the house of brother on the same street. He has furth that he has no concern with the o Besides that the defendant wh admitted it to be correct that the plaintiff Gurdev Singh.” Learned counsel for th t or dispute the aforesaid concurr low. As such, I find no ground is peal. Before parting, it may be p of the year 2019 and notice has esent case has been adjourned at re ant on 16.10.2023, 12.01.2024 and e on behalf of the appellant on In view of the above prese Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No p. 8 ther of Gurdev Singh is situated further admitted it to be correct the ownership of the said street. while appearing as DW1 has t the street leads to the house of the appellant is unable to current findings of the learned d is made out to entertain the be pointed out that the present has not yet been issued in the at request of learned counsel for and 04.09.2024; and due to non- on 24.01.2023, 05.05.2023 and resent appeal is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 8 SUNENA 2025.01.14 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document