RSA-2734-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125 Dara Singh and others Darbara Singh and others CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. for the appellants. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL 1. The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated the suit for possession 15.07.2025 passed by the preferred by them against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, has been dismissed. 2. In brief, the comprised in Kh for permanent injunction titled as " defendants from encroaching upon the suit property when they encroach portion of suit property. It is s the learned trial Court for d report concluding land of the plaintiffs of local commissioner, plaintiff 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2734 Date of Decision: Dara Singh and others Versus and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the appellants. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2018 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing possession filed by the respondents passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court vide which the appeal preferred by them against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, has been dismissed. In brief, the facts are that the plaintiffs comprised in Khasra/Khatauni No. 233/246, Kh for permanent injunction titled as "Darbara Singh Vs. Dara Singh defendants from encroaching upon the suit property when they encroach portion of suit property. It is submitted that a local rial Court for demarcation of the suit property, who concluding that defendants had encroached upon the area i.e. 6 the plaintiffs, as detailed in the head note of the plaint. After the said report of local commissioner, plaintiffs, number of times requested the defendants IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 34-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:12.08.2025 ... Appellants ... Respondents AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , Advocate , J. (ORAL) The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the passed by the learned trial Court decreeing filed by the respondents-plaintiffs and the judgment dated Appellate Court vide which the appeal preferred by them against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned facts are that the plaintiffs being owner of the land No. 233/246, Khasra No.139 (2-1) had filed a suit Darbara Singh Vs. Dara Singh" restraining the defendants from encroaching upon the suit property when they encroached upon ubmitted that a local commissioner was appointed by emarcation of the suit property, who submitted his encroached upon the area i.e. 6 marlas of detailed in the head note of the plaint. After the said report number of times requested the defendants IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the passed by the learned trial Court decreeing plaintiffs and the judgment dated Appellate Court vide which the appeal preferred by them against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned of the land filed a suit " restraining the upon a commissioner was appointed by submitted his arlas of detailed in the head note of the plaint. After the said report number of times requested the defendants PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2734-2025 (O&M) to vacate the suit property, but the defendants flatly refused to that the suit wa Nagar on 6.8.2013 to the extent of portion of Kh. No.139(2 plaintiffs and the suit was dismissed against the portion Kh. No.139(2 in possession of defendants an times not to proceed with illegal acts and designs, but they are not paying any heed to the request of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit portion of Kh.No.139(2 “East: West: 10 gathas adjoining defendant. North: 8 gathas adjoining Naib Singh son of Lachman Singh. South: 6 gathas adjoining Sucha Singh encroached by the defendants comprised in the land K No.233/246, Kh. No. case titled as “Darbara Singh Vs. Dara Singh” situated within the revenue limits of village Sekhan Majra H.B. No.Tehsil & District SAS Nagar and for permanent injunction restraining t raising construction over the suit property.” 3. Upon notice of the suit, defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that suit is hopelessly time barred; suit is barred under Committee got constructed the road after passing the resolution by Gram Panchayat in the year 1972 and the plaintiffs o type of objection a civil suit No.13/1.7.2013 Court of Sh. H.S. Bajwa, PCS, CJ(JD), Mohali and at the time of filing of that suit, the road already existed since the year 1972 and across the road, there exist construction of defendant N 2025 (O&M) -2- to vacate the suit property, but the defendants flatly refused to that the suit was partially decreed by the Court of Sh. H.S. Bajwa, CJ(JD), SAS Nagar on 6.8.2013 to the extent of portion of Kh. No.139(2 and the suit was dismissed against the portion Kh. No.139(2 in possession of defendants and road. The plaintiff requested the defendant times not to proceed with illegal acts and designs, but they are not paying any heed to the request of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit portion of Kh.No.139(2-1) land i.e. 6 marlas bounded as under: East: 8 gathas adjoining road. West: 10 gathas adjoining defendant. North: 8 gathas adjoining Naib Singh son of Lachman Singh. South: 6 gathas adjoining Sucha Singh encroached by the defendants comprised in the land K No.233/246, Kh. No.139(2-1) as demarcated by local commissioner in case titled as “Darbara Singh Vs. Dara Singh” situated within the revenue limits of village Sekhan Majra H.B. No.Tehsil & District SAS Nagar and for permanent injunction restraining t raising construction over the suit property.” Upon notice of the suit, defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that suit is hopelessly time barred; suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. On merits, i Committee got constructed the road after passing the resolution by Gram Panchayat in the year 1972 and the plaintiffs or objection at the time of paving/construction of the road. The o.13/1.7.2013 dated 3.3.2009 and the same has been decided by the Court of Sh. H.S. Bajwa, PCS, CJ(JD), Mohali and at the time of filing of that suit, the road already existed since the year 1972 and across the road, there exist construction of defendant No.1. It was submitted that they should have sought the to vacate the suit property, but the defendants flatly refused to do so. It is submitted s partially decreed by the Court of Sh. H.S. Bajwa, CJ(JD), SAS Nagar on 6.8.2013 to the extent of portion of Kh. No.139(2-1) in possession of and the suit was dismissed against the portion Kh. No.139(2-1) which is d road. The plaintiff requested the defendants many times not to proceed with illegal acts and designs, but they are not paying any heed to the request of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit was filed for possession of 6 marlas bounded as under:- West: 10 gathas adjoining defendant. North: 8 gathas adjoining Naib Singh son of Lachman Singh. South: 6 gathas adjoining Sucha Singh encroached by the defendants comprised in the land Kh/Kh. 1) as demarcated by local commissioner in case titled as “Darbara Singh Vs. Dara Singh” situated within the revenue limits of village Sekhan Majra H.B. No.Tehsil & District SAS Nagar and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising construction over the suit property.” Upon notice of the suit, defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that suit is hopelessly time barred; On merits, it was submitted that Market Committee got constructed the road after passing the resolution by Gram r their predecessors did not raise any onstruction of the road. The plaintiffs filed 3.3.2009 and the same has been decided by the Court of Sh. H.S. Bajwa, PCS, CJ(JD), Mohali and at the time of filing of that suit, the road already existed since the year 1972 and across the road, there exist tted that they should have sought the . It is submitted s partially decreed by the Court of Sh. H.S. Bajwa, CJ(JD), SAS 1) in possession of 1) which is many times not to proceed with illegal acts and designs, but they are not paying any heed was filed for possession of h/Kh. 1) as demarcated by local commissioner in case titled as “Darbara Singh Vs. Dara Singh” situated within the revenue limits of village Sekhan Majra H.B. No.Tehsil & District SAS he defendants from Upon notice of the suit, defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that suit is hopelessly time barred; submitted that Market Committee got constructed the road after passing the resolution by Gram their predecessors did not raise any plaintiffs filed 3.3.2009 and the same has been decided by the Court of Sh. H.S. Bajwa, PCS, CJ(JD), Mohali and at the time of filing of that suit, the road already existed since the year 1972 and across the road, there existed tted that they should have sought the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2734-2025 (O&M) relief of possession at the time of filing previous suit as the road as well as construction was already there. It was also submitted the demarcation was not carried out correctly by the local commissioner so appointe 4. On the basis of pleadings, five issues including evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and the appeal preferred by the defendants was also dismissed Appellate Court 5. Learned counsel for the appellants Courts below have heavily relied upon the report of the loc while deciding the suit as well as the appeal. In fact, the said report Ex.P2 was prepared and submitted in previous round of litigation i.e. a simplicitor suit for injunction titled as fact, the learned Courts below have overlooked the fact that report local commissioner in the previous suit was not prepared as per the guidelines rules framed by the High Court. Tehsildar, who prepared the report Ex.P2 in the previously instituted suit. Neither the Tehsildar nor the Kanungo have been examined in the present suit to prove the local commissioner’s report relied upon the report of the local commissioner favour of the respondents to the judgment passed Ram Singh in RSA No. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. 2025 (O&M) -3- relief of possession at the time of filing previous suit as the road as well as construction was already there. It was also submitted the demarcation was not carried out correctly by the local commissioner so appointe On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court had framed as many as five issues including relief. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary produced before it, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs appeal preferred by the defendants was also dismissed Appellate Court. Hence, the regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants Courts below have heavily relied upon the report of the loc while deciding the suit as well as the appeal. In fact, the said report Ex.P2 was prepared and submitted in previous round of litigation i.e. a simplicitor suit for injunction titled as Darbara Singh Vs. Dara Singh. fact, the learned Courts below have overlooked the fact that report local commissioner in the previous suit was not prepared as per the guidelines rules framed by the High Court. In fact, respondents Tehsildar, who prepared the report Ex.P2 in the previously instituted suit. Neither the Tehsildar nor the Kanungo have been examined in the present suit to prove the local commissioner’s report and as such, learned Courts below should not have relied upon the report of the local commissioner favour of the respondents-plaintiffs. On this point, attention of this Court is drawn to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.5518 of 2014 decided on 01.06.2018. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. relief of possession at the time of filing previous suit as the road as well as construction was already there. It was also submitted the demarcation was not carried out correctly by the local commissioner so appointed. learned trial Court had framed as many as On appreciation of oral as well as documentary produced before it, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs appeal preferred by the defendants was also dismissed by the learned 1 . Hence, the regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that both the Courts below have heavily relied upon the report of the local commissioner Ex.P2 while deciding the suit as well as the appeal. In fact, the said report Ex.P2 was prepared and submitted in previous round of litigation i.e. a simplicitor suit for Darbara Singh Vs. Dara Singh. It is further submitted that fact, the learned Courts below have overlooked the fact that report submitted by the local commissioner in the previous suit was not prepared as per the guidelines In fact, respondents-plaintiffs never examined the Tehsildar, who prepared the report Ex.P2 in the previously instituted suit. Neither the Tehsildar nor the Kanungo have been examined in the present suit to prove the and as such, learned Courts below should not have relied upon the report of the local commissioner, Ex.P2 and passed the decree in plaintiffs. On this point, attention of this Court is drawn by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dalbir Singh Vs. on 01.06.2018. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants-defendants, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. relief of possession at the time of filing previous suit as the road as well as construction was already there. It was also submitted the demarcation was not learned trial Court had framed as many as On appreciation of oral as well as documentary produced before it, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by the learned 1st defendants submits that both the al commissioner Ex.P2 while deciding the suit as well as the appeal. In fact, the said report Ex.P2 was prepared and submitted in previous round of litigation i.e. a simplicitor suit for bmitted that in submitted by the local commissioner in the previous suit was not prepared as per the guidelines and xamined the Tehsildar, who prepared the report Ex.P2 in the previously instituted suit. Neither the Tehsildar nor the Kanungo have been examined in the present suit to prove the and as such, learned Courts below should not have and passed the decree in plaintiffs. On this point, attention of this Court is drawn Dalbir Singh Vs. this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2734-2025 (O&M) Admittedly, the present respondent No.1 for permanent injunction against the present appellant No.1 him from encroaching upon the suit property when they tried to encroach upon the area of the plaintiff therein. In the said earlier suit, Tehsildar was appointed as local commissioner, who submitted his report as Ex.P2 of land of the plaintiff Dara Singh. Admittedly, parties in the earlier suit and the present suit are same. The report of the local commissioner Ex.P2, which was proved in the earlier suit was never challenged Though much hue and cry h that heavy duty was casted upon the present respondents to examine the Tehsildar, who had earlier prepared the report Ex.P2 before the learned trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that when in t present respondent No.1 submitted his report as Ex.P2 holding that present appellants had encroached upon 6 marlas of land of the respondents, there commissioner in the present suit. Even in the judgment passed by this Court in Dalbir Singh’s case appellants, it is held that inspect a property shall form part of the record and it is not necessary that such report should be marked or exhibited and it is not even necessary commissioner under all circumstances should be examined. parties does not accept the correctness of the report of the local commissioner then it is open to such party to file objections appellants never filed any objections to the report of the local comm 2025 (O&M) -4- Admittedly, the present respondent No.1-Darbara Singh for permanent injunction against the present appellant No.1 him from encroaching upon the suit property when they tried to encroach upon the the plaintiff therein. In the said earlier suit, Tehsildar was appointed as local commissioner, who submitted his report as Ex.P2 of land of the plaintiff-Darbara Singh has been encroached upon by the defendant dmittedly, parties in the earlier suit and the present suit are same. The report of the local commissioner Ex.P2, which was proved in the earlier suit was never challenged; nor any party, went in appeal against the said report. Though much hue and cry has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that heavy duty was casted upon the present respondents to examine the Tehsildar, who had earlier prepared the report Ex.P2 before the learned trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that when in the earlier instituted suit for permanent injunction by present respondent No.1-Darbara Singh, local commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report as Ex.P2 holding that present appellants had encroached upon 6 marlas of land of the respondents, there is no need to examine the said local commissioner in the present suit. Even in the judgment passed by this Court in Dalbir Singh’s case (supra), which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, it is held that report of the local commiss inspect a property shall form part of the record and it is not necessary that such report should be marked or exhibited and it is not even necessary commissioner under all circumstances should be examined. parties does not accept the correctness of the report of the local commissioner then it is open to such party to file objections to the same appellants never filed any objections to the report of the local comm Darbara Singh had instituted earlier a suit for permanent injunction against the present appellant No.1-Dara Singh, restraining him from encroaching upon the suit property when they tried to encroach upon the the plaintiff therein. In the said earlier suit, Tehsildar was appointed as local commissioner, who submitted his report as Ex.P2 stating therein that 6 marlas Darbara Singh has been encroached upon by the defendant dmittedly, parties in the earlier suit and the present suit are same. The report of the local commissioner Ex.P2, which was proved in the earlier suit went in appeal against the said report. as been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that heavy duty was casted upon the present respondents to examine the Tehsildar, who had earlier prepared the report Ex.P2 before the learned trial Court, this Court he earlier instituted suit for permanent injunction by Darbara Singh, local commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report as Ex.P2 holding that present appellants had encroached upon is no need to examine the said local commissioner in the present suit. Even in the judgment passed by this Court in which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the report of the local commissioner appointed by a court to inspect a property shall form part of the record and it is not necessary that such report should be marked or exhibited and it is not even necessary that commissioner under all circumstances should be examined. But in case, any of the parties does not accept the correctness of the report of the local commissioner then to the same. However, in the case in hand, appellants never filed any objections to the report of the local commissioner. The had instituted earlier a suit Dara Singh, restraining him from encroaching upon the suit property when they tried to encroach upon the the plaintiff therein. In the said earlier suit, Tehsildar was appointed as stating therein that 6 marlas Darbara Singh has been encroached upon by the defendant- dmittedly, parties in the earlier suit and the present suit are same. The report of the local commissioner Ex.P2, which was proved in the earlier suit, went in appeal against the said report. as been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that heavy duty was casted upon the present respondents to examine the Tehsildar, who had earlier prepared the report Ex.P2 before the learned trial Court, this Court he earlier instituted suit for permanent injunction by Darbara Singh, local commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report as Ex.P2 holding that present appellants had encroached upon is no need to examine the said local commissioner in the present suit. Even in the judgment passed by this Court in which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the ioner appointed by a court to inspect a property shall form part of the record and it is not necessary that such the any of the parties does not accept the correctness of the report of the local commissioner then However, in the case in hand, issioner. The PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2734-2025 (O&M) report of local commissioner Ex.P2 has been proved before the learned Courts below by the respondents 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned cou no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Consequently, the concurrent finding rendered by both the Courts below is upheld and the instant regular second appeal is dismissed. 8. Misc. application(s) pending August 12, 2025 Pankaj* 2025 (O&M) -5- report of local commissioner Ex.P2 has been proved before the learned Courts below by the respondents-plaintiffs. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned cou no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Consequently, the concurrent finding rendered by both the Courts below is upheld and the instant regular second appeal is dismissed. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable report of local commissioner Ex.P2 has been proved before the learned Courts In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Consequently, the concurrent finding rendered by both the Courts below is upheld and the instant , if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No report of local commissioner Ex.P2 has been proved before the learned Courts In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not nsel for the parties, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Consequently, the concurrent finding rendered by both the Courts below is upheld and the instant AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh