RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& [119] [1] Firm Messe Shri Charan Bubber Con of the defen [2] Bubber Con its authoris of the Appe Firm Messe Shri Charan Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR RSA-1047 Date of De Messers National Wollen Mills throug Charanjit Kapoor, its partner versus er Containers (P) Limited through Dir e defendant/respondent Company, Am RSA-5927 er Containers (P) Limited, Amritsar uthorised signatory Manjyot Singh, e Appellant Company, Amritsar versus Messers National Wollen Mills throug Charanjit Kapoor, its partner HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Adv Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant in RSA-1047 Mrs. Munisha Gandhi, Senior Mr. Suvineet Sharma, Advocat Ms. Salina Chalana and Mr. A Advocates for the respondents in RSA-1047-2014 and for the in RSA-5927-2015 . *** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff is in second appeal. OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 1047-2014 (O&M) of Decision : 16.01.2025 through …Appellant gh Directors y, Amritsar. ….Respondents 5927-2015 (O&M) ritsar through ingh, Director …Appellant through ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN Advocate with vocate 1047-2014. enior Advocate and dvocate with Mr. Adarsh Dubey, ndents for the appellant 1 RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& [2] directed ag [3] original po defendants. [4] 2015 is at t [5] restraint ag over the in Developme claimed tha firm and th [6] of the plain [7] partnership Departmen [8] 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) These two instant appeals wi ted against the same judgment. For convenience, parties are nal positions as in the suit i.e. appella dants. RSA-1047-2014 is at the behe is at the behest of the defendants. Plaintiff filed a suit for perman aint against the defendants from inter the industrial plots bearing Nos.16, 1 lopment Colony near Guru Nanak Dev ed that the plots in question, were a and the firm is in possession as owners Suit was resisted by the defen e plaintiff. It was claimed that the prop ership firm. The defendants are rtment, State of Punjab and are thus re On the basis of pleadings, follo “1) Whether the plaintiff is Shri Charanjit Kapoor OPP. 2) Whether the plots No. 1 the Industries Departme 3) Whether the plaintiffs ar in question as alleged? O als will dispose off two cross-appea s are hereinafter referred to by the ppellant as plaintiff and respondents a e behest of the plaintiff and RSA-5927 permanent injunction, seeking decree o interfering in his peaceful possessio s.16, 17, 24 & 25 situated in Industri ak Dev University, Amritsar. It wa were allotted in favour of the plaintif owners thereof. defendants for denying the ownersh e property in fact never vested in th ts are allottee under the Industrie thus real owner thereof. s, following issues were framed:- ff is a registered partnership firm an oor is one of its registered partners o. 16, 17, 24 and 25 were allotted b rtment to the plaintiff? OPP ffs are owners in possession of the lo ed? OPP. 2 appeals by their dents as 5927- ecree of ssession dustrial It was laintiff- nership in the dustries m and tners? ted by he lots RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& [9] by the Cour or allottee upon testim plots after handed ove plaintiff is sustainable affirmed by [10] [11] with respec [12] decree pas misdirected grant of de ‘physical p concurrentl favour of t title but hav 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) 4) Whether the plots in que to the defendant and thereof? OPD. 5) Whether the plaintiff is as prayed for? OPP. 6) Relief. ” Findings on Issue Nos.2 & 3 w e Court of first instance. It was held th lottee as claimed. While returning fin testimony of DW-10 to hold that thou after resumption but it is only the ed over to them. Thus, learned Tr tiff is in physical possession but he inable. Suit was ordered to be dismis ed by the learned Appellate Court in Plaintiff has filed appeal, impu Defendants are in appeal, impu respect to possession. Mr. Bhan, Senior Counsel, w e passed by both the Courts below irected themselves in ignoring the fac t of decree of permanent injunction. T sical possession’, once the plaintiff ha urrently by both the Courts, the suit ur of the plaintiff. He thus, submits but having being found in possession question stands resumed and re-so nd that defendant is in possessio iff is entitled to permanent injunctio & 3 were returned against the plainti held that the plaintiff was not the own ing finding on Issue No.4, Court relie at though defendants have been allotte the symbolic possession that has bee ed Trial Court though found that th eld his possession to be illegal n dismissed. The aforesaid findings stan urt in appeal. l, impugning the judgment and decree. l, impugning the findings on Issue No sel, while assailing the judgment an below, asserts that the Courts below the fact that the suit was simplicitor fo ion. The only determining factor bein tiff has been found to be in possessio e suit ought to have been decreed bmits that even though plaintiff has n ssion is entitled to decree of permane 3 sold ession nction plaintiff e owner rt relied allotted as been that the egal not gs stand ecree. ue No.4 ent and below, r for being ssession creed in f has no rmanent RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& injunction. [13] submits tha possession resumption injunction. maintainab [14] it is evide and in view ought not h [15] through the [16] position to appellant st final. The plaintiff is injunction, “can plaint Supreme C Commissio issue, obser 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) ction. Per contra, learned Senior Cou its that even though the Courts below ession, but it has been held that the ption was that of a trespasser and th ction. Defendant being lawful allotte tainable. From the conjoint reading of d evident that the defendants were hande in view of the overwhelming docume t not have given precedence to the oral I have heard counsel for the gh the records of the case. Learned Senior counsel appea ion to dispute that the resumption p llant stand concluded. Even prior to f . The plots stand further allotted. E tiff is held to be in possession, in ord ction, he needs to show that his posse plaintiff seek decree of permanent eme Court in ‘Sopan Sukhdeo S missioner’, reported as (2004) 3 SC , observed as under:- “25. Now the other aspect o Assuming a trespasser ousted or Counsel appearing for the defendan s below found that the plaintiff was at the possession of the plaintiff aft and thus, plaintiff was not entitled fo allottee, suit against true owner was n g of documents (Exhibits D-8 & D-11 handed over possession after allotme ocumentary evidence on record, Cou he oral testimony. or the parties and have carefully gon appearing for the appellant is not in tion proceedings qua the plots again or to filing of the suit, the same beca ed. Even if for the sake of argumen in order to maintain suit for perpetu s possession is lawful. The question i anent injunction against true owner? eo Sable versus Assistant Chari SCC 137 while answering the sa ct of the matter needs to be note sted can seek restoration of possessio 4 fendants f was in after itled for was not 11), llotment d, Court gone not in a against became gument, erpetual stion is, owner?” Charity the said noted. ession RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& [17] perpetual in 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) under Section 6 of the Specific R seek injunction against the tru entirely depend upon Section 6 depends upon certain general injunctions and as to the scope granting injunction. In Mah Municipal Corporation (1995 referring to Woodrofe : "Law L.C. : 'Law of injunctions; B Injunctions and other leading appellant who was a trespas injunction against the true o quoted Shiv Kumar Chadha v. SCC 161) wherein it was obser and that:- "Judicial proceedings c perpetuate a wrong comm the Court". 26. Reference was also Singh (1992 (1) SCC 71 words “prima facie case observed in Mahadeo's ca "9. It is settled law th against the owner at the possession." Section 38 of the Specific Reli etual injunctions. The same read as un “38. Perpetual injunction wh (1) Subject to the other prov by this Chapter, a perpe the plaintiff to preven existing in his favo implication. ific Relief Act, 1963, can the trespasse e true owner? This question does n n 6 of the Specific Relief Act, but main ral principles applicable to the law scope of the exercise of discretion whi Mahadeo Savlaram Sheike v. Pun 95 (3) SCC 33), it was held, aft aw relating to injunction; L.C. Goya s; Bean David : Injunctions; Jayce ding Articles on the subject that t spasser in possession could not se e owner. In that context this Cou v. Municipal Corpn. Of Delhi [(1993 bserved that injunction is discretiona s cannot be used to protect or committed by a person who approach s also made to Dalpat Kumar v. Prahla 719) in regard to the meaning of t ase” and “balance of convenience” a 's case (supra) that: w that no injunction could be grant t the instance of a person in unlawf ic Relief Act, 1963 governs the grant o as under:- n when granted.— provisions contained in or referred erpetual injunction may be granted event the breach of an obligatio favour, whether expressly or b 5 passer es not mainly law of while Pune after Goyal, ayce : at the t seek Court 1993 3 ionary or to oaches rahlad of the and ranted lawful grant of red to ted to gation r by RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& [18] proved bey to be the contemplat [19] though the claimed ass disputed b required to property. O plaintiff an Courts belo 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) (2) When any such obligati shall be guided by the r Chapter II. (3) When the defendant inv plaintiff’s right to, or e may grant a perpetual namely:— (a) where the defend the plaintiff; (b) where there exists actual damage ca the invasion; (c) where the invasio money would not (d) where the injunc multiplicity of jud Once the resumption and the ed beyond doubt, plaintiff cannot claim one which needs to be protecte mplated under Section 38(3). At this stage, it needs to be o gh the plaintiff claimed perpetual inj ed asserting title over the suit land. T ted by the defendants. Thus, the p ired to plead and prove that he was erty. Once, defendants raised serious tiff and plaintiff himself asserted tit ts below on Issue Nos.2, 3 & 4 igation arises from contract, the cou the rules and provisions contained t invades or threatens to invade th or enjoyment of, property, the cou ual injunction in the following case fendant is trustee of the property f xists no standard for ascertaining th e caused, or likely to be caused, b vasion is such that compensation not afford adequate relief; junction is necessary to prevent f judicial proceedings.” the subsequent allotment has bee ot claim his possession to be rightful o rotected being one of the situations a to be observed that in the present su ual injunction but the same was bein and. Title of the plaintiff was serious the plaintiff on the date of suit wa e was in lawful possession of the su erious issue with respect to title of th ted title, the findings recorded by th 4 have assumed much significanc 6 court ned in de the court cases, rty for ng the ed, by ion in ent a been htful or tions as ent suit, s being eriously uit was the suit e of the by the ificance. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& Reference Sudhakar reads as un 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) rence can be made to law laid down akar versus P. Buchi Reddy’, repor as under:- “21. To summarize, the positio injunction relating to immovable (a) Where a cloud is does not have possessi possession, with or witho remedy. Where the plaint cloud, but he is out of pos with a consequential inj interference with plainti dispossession, it is suf simpliciter. (b) As a suit for injun with possession, normally and substantially in issue decided with reference to cases where de jure posse basis of title to the proper issue of title may dir consideration, as withou possible to decide the issu (c) But a finding on ti injunction, unless there appropriate issue regard as noticed in Annaimu averments regarding title there is no issue relating or examine or render a fi for injunction. Even wher issue, if the matter involv law relating to title, the c down by Supreme Court in ‘Anathu , reported as (2008) 4 SCC 594, whic sition in regard to suits for prohibito able property, is as under :- d is raised over plaintiff's title and session, a suit for declaration an ithout a consequential injunction, is t laintiff's title is not in dispute or under f possession, he has to sue for possessio l injunction. Where there is merely a aintiff's lawful possession or threat s sufficient to sue for an injunctio injunction simpliciter is concerned on ally the issue of title will not be direct issue. The prayer for injunction will ce to the finding on possession. But possession has to be established on t operty, as in the case of vacant sites, t directly and substantially arise f thout a finding thereon, it will not issue of possession. on title cannot be recorded in a suit f there are necessary pleadings an arding title [either specific, or impli aimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where t title are absent in a plaint and whe ting to title, the court will not investiga a finding on a question of title, in a su here there are necessary pleadings an volves complicated questions of fact an the court will relegate the parties to t 7 nathula which ibitory nd he and is the nder a ession ely an eat of nction d only irectly ill be But in on the es, the se for not be suit for s and mplied e the where stigate a suit gs and ct and s to the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& [20] Supreme C Didar Sing [21] dismissed t [22] 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) remedy by way of compre instead of deciding the issu (d) Where there are n and appropriate issue rel evidence, if the matter forward, the court may d even in a suit for injunctio to the normal rule that qu suits for injunction. B possession suing for inju costlier and more cum declaration, merely beca wrongfully makes a cla property. The court sho identify cases where it wi it will refer to plaintiff to suit, depending upon the f Further reference can be m eme Court in the case of ‘Jharkhan r Singh’, reported as (2019) 17 SCC 6 “11. It is well settled by caten in each and every case wh of the plaintiff it is not necessar to seek the relief of declaration. lie only when the defendant raise title and when he raises a cloud necessarily in those circumstan suit for bare injunction.” In view thereof, this Court fin issed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Counsel representing defenda mprehensive suit for declaration of titl e issue in a suit for mere injunction. re necessary pleadings regarding tit e relating to title on which parties lea tter involved is simple and straigh ay decide upon the issue regarding titl nction. But such cases, are the exceptio at question of title will not be decided But persons having clear title an injunction, should not be driven to t cumbersome remedy of a suit f because some meddler vexatiously claim or tries to encroach upon h should use its discretion carefully it will enquire into title and cases whe iff to a more comprehensive declarato the facts of the case. ” be made to observations made b rkhand State Housing Board vers CC 692, observing as under:- atena of judgments of this Court tha where the defendant disputes the tit ssary that in all those cases plaintiff h tion. A suit for mere injunction does n raises a genuine dispute with regard cloud over the title of the plaintiff, th stances, the plaintiff cannot maintain urt finds that the Courts below right efendants submits that in view of th 8 f title, g title, s lead raight- g title, eption ded in e and to the it for sly or on his lly to s where ratory ade by versus that he title tiff has es not ard to f, then tain a rightly of the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& findings gi the plaintif RSA-5927 [23] disposed of [24] 16.01.2025 ‘R. Sharma' 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) ngs given by this Court hereinabove laintiff has been dismissed, she doe 5927-2015 is thus dismissed as not pr All pending miscellaneous ed off. Photocopy of this order be plac .2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable bove and the fact that the suit filed b he does not wish to press her appea not pressed. ous application(s), if any, also stand be placed on the file of connected case (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 9 filed by appeal. stands d case. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document