RSA-5417 114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Mehta Ram and another Gram Panchayat Behlana and ors. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM-14421 allowed. Delay of 32 days in re RSA-5417 judgments and decrees dated the Courts below; whereby the suit for possession and permanent injunction filed at the instance of appellants / p property forming part of Khasra No. estate of Village Behlana, U.T. Chandigarh came to be dismissed. 2. No. 18//42 Chandigarh to be a passage, the appellants filed a suit for possession 5417-2017 (O&M) [1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RSA Date of Decision: Mehta Ram and another Versus Gram Panchayat Behlana and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr.Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the appellants. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 14421-C-2017 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 32 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 5417-2017 (O&M) By way of present appeal challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 18.04.2013 and 31.08.2016 the Courts below; whereby the suit for possession and permanent injunction filed at the instance of appellants / p property forming part of Khasra No.42, estate of Village Behlana, U.T. Chandigarh came to be dismissed. In short, while claiming the suit property bearing Khasra 42, situated within the revenue estate of Village Behlana, UT Chandigarh to be a passage, the appellants filed a suit for possession 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-5417-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.09.2025 …….Appellants Versus .….Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is filing the appeal is condoned. By way of present appeal challenge has been laid to the 18.04.2013 and 31.08.2016 passed by the Courts below; whereby the suit for possession and permanent injunction filed at the instance of appellants / plaintiffs with respect to 42, situated within the revenue estate of Village Behlana, U.T. Chandigarh came to be dismissed. In short, while claiming the suit property bearing Khasra revenue estate of Village Behlana, UT Chandigarh to be a passage, the appellants filed a suit for possession For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is By way of present appeal challenge has been laid to the passed by the Courts below; whereby the suit for possession and permanent laintiffs with respect to situated within the revenue In short, while claiming the suit property bearing Khasra revenue estate of Village Behlana, UT Chandigarh to be a passage, the appellants filed a suit for possession RSA-5417 as well as permanent injunction Gram Panchayat had unauthorizedly taken possession having raised a bo was also pleaded that the said passage was being used by the residents of the Village and unlawful on the part of Gram Panchayat of the Village. Plaintiffs further plead of Khasra N being used as a passage to the obstruction 3. controverting the stand appellants/ plaintiffs part of Khasra No. 18//27 was also submitted that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was never used as common passage but was reserved during consolidation village. It was qua the same property filed by the appellants was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1999 passed by the trial Court and the was even upheld in appeal 09.09.2002 and t barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. 4. 5417-2017 (O&M) [2 as well as permanent injunction to the effect Gram Panchayat had unauthorizedly taken possession raised a boundary wall thereupon in an unlawful manner. It was also pleaded that the said passage was being used by the residents of the Village and the obstruction raised thereupon was unlawful on the part of Gram Panchayat of the Village. Plaintiffs pleaded that they happened to be owner in possession of part Khasra No. 18//27 and the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was being used as a passage to their land bearing Khasra No.18//27, thus the obstruction was illegal and hence the present suit. Upon notice, written statement controverting the stand taken by the appellants while stating that appellants/ plaintiffs they were no more part of Khasra No. 18//27 as the same already stood sold by the was also submitted that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was never used as common passage but was reserved during consolidation for being utilized as ‘Kura Dan village. It was further pleaded that the suit for permanent injunction qua the same property filed by the appellants was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1999 passed by the trial Court and the was even upheld in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002 and thus the present suit was not maintainable being barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were 2] to the effect that the respondent Gram Panchayat had unauthorizedly taken possession of the same undary wall thereupon in an unlawful manner. It was also pleaded that the said passage was being used by the obstruction raised thereupon was unlawful on the part of Gram Panchayat of the Village. Plaintiffs ed that they happened to be owner in possession of part 18//27 and the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was land bearing Khasra No.18//27, thus hence the present suit. n notice, written statement was filed by respondent taken by the appellants while stating that the they were no more the owners of land forming as the same already stood sold by them. It was also submitted that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was never used as common passage but was reserved during Kura Dan’ by the residents of the pleaded that the suit for permanent injunction qua the same property filed by the appellants was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1999 passed by the trial Court and vide judgment and decree dated hus the present suit was not maintainable being On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were that the respondent the same undary wall thereupon in an unlawful manner. It was also pleaded that the said passage was being used by the obstruction raised thereupon was unlawful on the part of Gram Panchayat of the Village. Plaintiffs ed that they happened to be owner in possession of part 18//27 and the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was land bearing Khasra No.18//27, thus was filed by respondents, the owners of land forming m. It was also submitted that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was never used as common passage but was reserved during ’ by the residents of the pleaded that the suit for permanent injunction qua the same property filed by the appellants was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1999 passed by the trial Court and vide judgment and decree dated hus the present suit was not maintainable being On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were RSA-5417 framed:- 5. learned trial Court went on to dismiss the suit, under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC vide judgment and decree dated 18.04.2013. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/ plaintiffs filed first appeal, however, the same was also dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.2016. 5417-2017 (O&M) [3 1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether plaintiffs are e as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether suit of plaintiffs is barred under order 2 Rule 2 of CPC? OPD 4. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by the principle of res-judicata? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non of parties? OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 7. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 8. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 9. Whether the suit is not in the form?OPD 10. Whether plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands? If so its effect?OPD 11. Whether the suit is bad for want to compliance of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC 12. Relief.” After appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court went on to dismiss the suit, under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC vide judgment and decree dated 18.04.2013. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/ plaintiffs filed first appeal, however, the same was also dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.2016. 3] Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for declaration Whether suit of plaintiffs is barred under order 2 Rule 2 Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by the principle of Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the Whether the suit is not in the present maintainable Whether plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands? If so its effect?OPD Whether the suit is bad for want to compliance of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC?OPD After appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court went on to dismiss the suit, inter-alia, being barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC vide judgment and decree dated 18.04.2013. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/ plaintiffs filed first appeal, however, the same was also dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession ntitled to decree for declaration Whether suit of plaintiffs is barred under order 2 Rule 2 Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by the principle of joinder Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present maintainable Whether plaintiffs have not come to the court with Whether the suit is bad for want to compliance of After appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the , being barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC vide judgment and decree dated 18.04.2013. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/ plaintiffs filed first appeal, however, the same was also dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated RSA-5417 6. passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was being used as passage and an entry to this effect was also recorded in Khasra Girdwari for the year 1990, which was wholly over Courts and thus the judgments and decrees impugned herei liable to be set aside plaintiffs was required to be decreed addressed. 7. through the paper submissions made on behalf of the appellant 8. in possession of part of Khasra No. 18//27 and the property forming part of Khasra No. 42 is being used as a passage Khasra No. 18//27. Undisputedly, that the appellants have no more remained owner in possession of the property forming part of Khasra No. 18//27 as the same already stood sold by them. 9. record in the shape of Exs forming part of Khasra No.42 belonged to used as ‘ entry in the khasra girdwarai for the year 1990 showing the appellants 5417-2017 (O&M) [4 Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was being used as passage and an entry to this effect was also recorded in Khasra Girdwari for the year 1990, which was wholly over Courts and thus the judgments and decrees impugned herei liable to be set aside and consequently the suit filed by appellants/ plaintiffs was required to be decreed addressed. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant through the paper-book, I am unable to fi submissions made on behalf of the appellant The case set up by the appellants is that they are owners in possession of part of Khasra No. 18//27 and the property forming part of Khasra No. 42 is being used as a passage Khasra No. 18//27. Undisputedly, it has been established on record the appellants have no more remained owner in possession of the property forming part of Khasra No. 18//27 as the same already stood sold by them. Furthermore, from the doc record in the shape of Exs. D1 to D9, it was proved that the property forming part of Khasra No.42 belonged to used as ‘Kura Dan’ and was never used as a passage. Mere stray entry in the khasra girdwarai for the year 1990 showing the appellants 4] Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was being used as passage and an entry to this effect was also recorded in Khasra Girdwari for the year 1990, which was wholly over-looked by the Courts and thus the judgments and decrees impugned herein were and consequently the suit filed by appellants/ plaintiffs was required to be decreed. No other argument has been Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone book, I am unable to find any substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. The case set up by the appellants is that they are owners in possession of part of Khasra No. 18//27 and the property forming part of Khasra No. 42 is being used as a passage so as to reach it has been established on record the appellants have no more remained owner in possession of the property forming part of Khasra No. 18//27 as the same already Furthermore, from the documentary evidence available on , it was proved that the property forming part of Khasra No.42 belonged to abadi deh and was being ’ and was never used as a passage. Mere stray entry in the khasra girdwarai for the year 1990 showing the appellants Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land forming part of Khasra No. 42 was being used as passage and an entry to this effect was also recorded in Khasra looked by the n were and consequently the suit filed by appellants/ No other argument has been and gone nd any substance in the The case set up by the appellants is that they are owners in possession of part of Khasra No. 18//27 and the property forming o reach it has been established on record the appellants have no more remained owner in possession of the property forming part of Khasra No. 18//27 as the same already umentary evidence available on , it was proved that the property and was being ’ and was never used as a passage. Mere stray entry in the khasra girdwarai for the year 1990 showing the appellants RSA-5417 to be in possession thereof was liable to be just ignored in view of the consistent revenue record to the contrary. Besides it, the suit f the instance of appellants wa as in the previous suit, the appellants/ plaintiffs never ever prayed for grant of possession and the only prayer made by them for permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned tr decree dated 21.12.1999 (Ex.DA) and the appeal against the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002 (ExDB). 10. paras, no question of involved in the present appeal warranting interference by this Court fact recorded by the Courts below merits is, therefore, dismissed. 11. disposed of. 02.09.2025 sanjay 5417-2017 (O&M) [5 to be in possession thereof was liable to be just ignored in view of the consistent revenue record to the contrary. Besides it, the suit f the instance of appellants was even barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as in the previous suit, the appellants/ plaintiffs never ever prayed for grant of possession and the only prayer made by them for permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned tr decree dated 21.12.1999 (Ex.DA) and the appeal against the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002 As such, in view of the discussion made paras, no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal; as there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court fact recorded by the Courts below, the present appeal being devoid merits is, therefore, dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? 5] to be in possession thereof was liable to be just ignored in view of the consistent revenue record to the contrary. Besides it, the suit filed at even barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as in the previous suit, the appellants/ plaintiffs never ever prayed for grant of possession and the only prayer made by them for permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1999 (Ex.DA) and the appeal against the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002 view of the discussion made in the foregoing law, much less substantial question of law is as there is no illegality or irregularity with the concurrent findings of , the present appeal being devoid Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No to be in possession thereof was liable to be just ignored in view of the iled at even barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as in the previous suit, the appellants/ plaintiffs never ever prayed for grant of possession and the only prayer made by them for permanent ial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1999 (Ex.DA) and the appeal against the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002 in the foregoing law, much less substantial question of law is as there is no illegality or irregularity with the concurrent findings of , the present appeal being devoid of Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA)