IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 109 Hari Om Bhagwant Singh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) concurrent by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration Rs.5000/- permanent injunction for mandatory injunction directing the respondent/defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property, as detailed in the plaint, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. In the present second ap Court had RSA-3396-2016 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3396 of 2016 Date of decision :-16.05.2025 Hari Om Versus Bhagwant Singh CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Ankur Ghai, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) The appellant has filed the present appeal against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration, recovery of mesne profit @ - per month w.e.f. 10.3.2011 till 10.10.2012 and for permanent injunction has been dismissed. In the present case, the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for mandatory injunction directing the respondent/defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property, as detailed in the plaint, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. In the present second appeal, vide order dated 05.2.2020, co Court had framed the following additional issue : “1A. Whether deceased Des Raj legally and validly executed the registered sale deed dated 22.3.2007 for a valuable consideration 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3396 of 2016 (O & M) .2025 …..Appellant …..Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the respondent. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the findings of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed , recovery of mesne profit @ per month w.e.f. 10.3.2011 till 10.10.2012 and for has been dismissed. the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for mandatory injunction directing the respondent/defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property, as detailed in the plaint, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. In the present peal, vide order dated 05.2.2020, co-ordinate Bench of this framed the following additional issue :- Whether deceased Des Raj legally and validly executed the registered sale deed dated 22.3.2007 for a valuable consideration RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.19 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. and had remanded back the matter to the learned trial Court with a direction and try the case and dispose off the issue and th report to this Court within three months from the date the parties put in appearance before it. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court. Office to put up the file on receipt of the report. H parties to undergo obligation to pay Court fee.” defendant/respondent had filed a separate suit qua the present suit property being Civil Suit No.37821 of Judge vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.2017 had held that the sale deed executed in favour of the present appellant suit property, the said judgment Appeal bearing No.1180 of 2017, which is pending before the Additional District Judge for 20.5.2025. matter, upon reconsideration, 31.5.2022 is submitted that dated 26.10.2017 has been now given by the learned trial Court. It is accordingly pra appeal be remanded back to Mr. Jagdeep Sood, Additional District RSA-3396-2016 (O & M) transferring the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, if so to what effect? OPP” and had remanded back the matter to the learned trial Court with a direction “…to take additional evidence, if so required, and proceed and try the case and dispose off the issue and th report to this Court within three months from the date the parties put in appearance before it. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court. Office to put up the file on receipt of the report. However, this will not come in the way for the parties to undergo obligation to pay Court fee.” Learned counsel for the parties are defendant/respondent had filed a separate suit qua the present suit property being Civil Suit No.37821 of 2013 in which the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.2017 had held that the sale deed executed in favour of the present appellant suit property, was not valid as it was not for consideration. the said judgment and decree, the present appellant had filed a Civil Appeal bearing No.1180 of 2017, which is pending before the Additional District Judge for 20.5.2025. Learned counsel submit that after remand of the present upon reconsideration, the learned 31.5.2022 has now held that the said sale deed in question is valid is submitted that therefore, a finding contradictory dated 26.10.2017 has been now given by the learned trial Court. It is accordingly prayed by learned counsel for the parties that the present appeal be remanded back to Mr. Jagdeep Sood, Additional District 2 suit property in favour of the plaintiff, if so to what effect? OPP” and had remanded back the matter to the learned trial Court with a “…to take additional evidence, if so required, and proceed and try the case and dispose off the issue and thereafter to submit the report to this Court within three months from the date the parties put in appearance before it. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court. Office to put up the file on owever, this will not come in the way for the parties to undergo obligation to pay Court fee.” Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the defendant/respondent had filed a separate suit qua the present suit 2013 in which the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.2017 had held that the sale deed executed in favour of the present appellant qua the present was not valid as it was not for consideration. Against he present appellant had filed a Civil Appeal bearing No.1180 of 2017, which is pending before the Learned counsel submit that after remand of the present the learned Civil Judge vide order dated sale deed in question is valid. It contradictory to the judgment dated 26.10.2017 has been now given by the learned trial Court. It is yed by learned counsel for the parties that the present appeal be remanded back to Mr. Jagdeep Sood, Additional District RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.19 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Judge, where Civil Appeal No.1180 of 2017 is now pending for 20.5.2025 so that both the matters can be decided together without there being any contradiction in the findings. learned counsel for the parties, the present matter is to Mr. Jagdeep Sood, Additional District Judge, where Civil Appeal No.1180 of 2017 is now pending for 20.5.2025. May 16, 202 rishu/Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No RSA-3396-2016 (O & M) Judge, where Civil Appeal No.1180 of 2017 is now pending for 20.5.2025 so that both the matters can be decided together without eing any contradiction in the findings. Heard. In view of the above ad idem learned counsel for the parties, the present matter is to Mr. Jagdeep Sood, Additional District Judge, where Civil Appeal No.1180 of 2017 is now pending for 20.5.2025. Disposed of in the above terms. , 2025 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Reportable Yes / No 3 Judge, where Civil Appeal No.1180 of 2017 is now pending for 20.5.2025 so that both the matters can be decided together without eing any contradiction in the findings. ad idem submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the present matter is remanded back to Mr. Jagdeep Sood, Additional District Judge, where Civil Appeal No.1180 of 2017 is now pending for 20.5.2025. in the above terms. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE RISHU KATARIA 2025.05.19 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.