RSA No. 118 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Ashok Omi Paliwal & Ors. CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present:- Mr. for the DEEPAK GUPTA, It is plaintiff’s appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, as suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff regarding property in dispute was dismissed by the trial Court on 22.05.2019 and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 04.02.2020. 2. Assailing the concurr for the appellant appreciated. Learned counsel contends that since the property in dispute is situated within have documentary proof regarding the measurements of his property Courts below have fallen in error in dismissing the suit. 3. Plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of house constructed on land measuring 115.5 s and District Sonipat constructed in the year 1970 and that on the existed his exclusive wall was alleged that in collusion with defendant No.1, defendant No.2 had of 2022 Page N: 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT RSA No. 118 of 2022(O&M) Date of decision: 01.09 Versus Omi Paliwal & Ors. CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate or the appellant. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. It is plaintiff’s appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff regarding property in dispute was dismissed by the trial Court on 22.05.2019 and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on Assailing the concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. Learned counsel contends that since the property in dispute is Lal Dora of the village, so it cannot be have documentary proof regarding the measurements of his property Courts below have fallen in error in dismissing the suit. Plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of house constructed on land measuring 115.5 sq. yards situated within Sonipat. He claimed it to be his ancestral property having been constructed in the year 1970 and that on the existed his exclusive wall, where he had constructed a latrine and bathroom. It was alleged that in collusion with defendant No.1, defendant No.2 had IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH (O&M) 01.09.2025 …Appellant …Respondent DEEPAK GUPTA It is plaintiff’s appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff regarding property in dispute was dismissed by the trial Court on 22.05.2019 and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on ent findings, it is contended by learned counsel plaintiff that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. Learned counsel contends that since the property in dispute is of the village, so it cannot be expected of the plaintiff have documentary proof regarding the measurements of his property and so, Courts below have fallen in error in dismissing the suit. Plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of house constructed on q. yards situated within Lal Dora of village Murthal, Tehsil . He claimed it to be his ancestral property having been constructed in the year 1970 and that on the northern side of the same, there constructed a latrine and bathroom. It was alleged that in collusion with defendant No.1, defendant No.2 had Appellant Respondents It is plaintiff’s appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff regarding property in dispute was dismissed by the trial Court on 22.05.2019 and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on ent findings, it is contended by learned counsel plaintiff that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. Learned counsel contends that since the property in dispute is the plaintiff to and so, Plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of house constructed on of village Murthal, Tehsil . He claimed it to be his ancestral property having been there constructed a latrine and bathroom. It was alleged that in collusion with defendant No.1, defendant No.2 had JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.02 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 118 of demolished the roof of house, without having any right. 4. The stand of defendant No.1 was th belonging to defendants N chopal. The plaintiff tried to encroach upon th water outlet of the house of defendant No.1 chopal, without having any right to do so. As it had caused great inconvenience to defendant No.1, so he made into the matter and removed the encroachment on 23.05.2016. It was, thus, claimed that unauthorized defendant No.2 and so he was not entitled to any relief of injunction 5. Taking (respondents No.2 and 3 herein) that there existed a of the house of plaintiff and plaintiff had encroached upon the land of defendant No.2 measuring 10 X 45 feet in the northern side of his house by illegally constructing latrine and bathroom and it is only after serving under Municipal Act upon him demolished. Prayer was according 6. After framing the necessary issues and taking the evidence, trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and all th First Appellate Court. 7. Learned counsel for appellant contends that simply because site plan of the property was not pro dismiss the suit and that his application for addit Appellate Court to produce the site plan was contended that there cannot be any documentary proof regarding the dimensions of the property. 8. After hearing learned counsel for appellant a finds that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. There are concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below based upon the evidence of 2022 Page N: 2 of 3 demolished the roof of plaintiff’s verandah and upper boundary wall of his house, without having any right. The stand of defendant No.1 was th belonging to defendants No.2 and 3 in between the house of the plaintiff and The plaintiff tried to encroach upon th water outlet of the house of defendant No.1 without having any right to do so. As it had caused great inconvenience to defendant No.1, so he made a complaint to defendant No.2 into the matter and removed the encroachment on 23.05.2016. It was, thus, claimed that unauthorized construction of plaintiff was demolished by defendant No.2 and so he was not entitled to any relief of injunction Taking a similar stand, it was pleaded by defendants No.2 and 3 (respondents No.2 and 3 herein) that there existed a of the house of plaintiff and plaintiff had encroached upon the land of defendant No.2 measuring 10 X 45 feet in the northern side of his house by illegally constructing latrine and bathroom and it is only after serving cipal Act upon him, the illegal construction of the plaintiff was demolished. Prayer was accordingly made for dismissal of the suit. After framing the necessary issues and taking the evidence, trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and all th First Appellate Court. Learned counsel for appellant contends that simply because site plan of the property was not produced by the plaintiff, could not be a reason to dismiss the suit and that his application for addit Appellate Court to produce the site plan was that there cannot be any documentary proof regarding the dimensions of the property. After hearing learned counsel for appellant a finds that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. There are concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below based upon the evidence verandah and upper boundary wall of his The stand of defendant No.1 was that there was Panchayati land .2 and 3 in between the house of the plaintiff and The plaintiff tried to encroach upon this vacant land and blocked the water outlet of the house of defendant No.1, which existed by the side o without having any right to do so. As it had caused great inconvenience complaint to defendant No.2, who inquired into the matter and removed the encroachment on 23.05.2016. It was, thus, construction of plaintiff was demolished by defendant No.2 and so he was not entitled to any relief of injunction. it was pleaded by defendants No.2 and 3 (respondents No.2 and 3 herein) that there existed a Gali towards western side of the house of plaintiff and plaintiff had encroached upon the land of defendant No.2 measuring 10 X 45 feet in the northern side of his house by illegally constructing latrine and bathroom and it is only after serving a statutory notice illegal construction of the plaintiff was made for dismissal of the suit. After framing the necessary issues and taking the evidence, trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and all the findings were affirmed by the Learned counsel for appellant contends that simply because site by the plaintiff, could not be a reason to dismiss the suit and that his application for additional evidence before the First Appellate Court to produce the site plan was also wrongly rejected. It is also that there cannot be any documentary proof regarding the After hearing learned counsel for appellant at length, this Court finds that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. There are concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below based upon the evidence verandah and upper boundary wall of his land .2 and 3 in between the house of the plaintiff and vacant land and blocked the which existed by the side of without having any right to do so. As it had caused great inconvenience who inquired into the matter and removed the encroachment on 23.05.2016. It was, thus, construction of plaintiff was demolished by it was pleaded by defendants No.2 and 3 n side of the house of plaintiff and plaintiff had encroached upon the land of defendant No.2 measuring 10 X 45 feet in the northern side of his house by illegally statutory notice illegal construction of the plaintiff was After framing the necessary issues and taking the evidence, trial e findings were affirmed by the Learned counsel for appellant contends that simply because site by the plaintiff, could not be a reason to First wrongly rejected. It is also that there cannot be any documentary proof regarding the t length, this Court finds that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. There are concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below based upon the evidence JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.02 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 118 of on record to the effect that there existed a small space between the house plaintiff and defendant No.1, which was used to access the village belonged to the Gram Panchayat same. It is on the complaint of defendant No.1 that defendant No.2 had demolished the evidence so as to prove the measurements of his property. 9. In the face of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts below calling for any interference. merits, is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), stands disposed of. 01.09.2025 Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable of 2022 Page N: 3 of 3 on record to the effect that there existed a small space between the house plaintiff and defendant No.1, which was used to access the village to the Gram Panchayat and that plaintiff had encroached upon the same. It is on the complaint of defendant No.1 that defendant No.2 had the illegal construction. The plaintiff did not produce any cogent evidence so as to prove the measurements of his property. In the face of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts below calling for any interference. As such, present appeal being devoid of any is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), stands disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No on record to the effect that there existed a small space between the house plaintiff and defendant No.1, which was used to access the village chopal and and that plaintiff had encroached upon the same. It is on the complaint of defendant No.1 that defendant No.2 had ction. The plaintiff did not produce any cogent evidence so as to prove the measurements of his property. In the face of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts present appeal being devoid of any Pending application(s), stands disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE on record to the effect that there existed a small space between the house of and and that plaintiff had encroached upon the same. It is on the complaint of defendant No.1 that defendant No.2 had ction. The plaintiff did not produce any cogent In the face of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts present appeal being devoid of any JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.02 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document