Mehinder Singh Suliar, J.

1. The epitome of the facts, relevant for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the present appeal and emanating from the record, is that Jagan son of Randhir Singh, Shiban son of Arjun Singh and Lila Ram son of Jas Ram (since deceased), being represented by his legal representatives Smt.Bida widow and Gobind son, respondent-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiffs) filed the suit for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the Gram Panchayat of village Mokalwas and Ram Phal son of Kashi Ram profonna respondent No.6-defendant No.2 and appellant-defendant No.3 Jhagru Ram son of Parbhati (hereinafter to be referred as the defendants) to remove the encroachment over the public path(Rasta Sare-am) in question, with further direction to the Gram Panchayat-defendant No.1 to take appropriate steps for its removal and with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.2 and 3 from making further encroachment over the public path in question. Sequelly, they have also sought a decree for declaration challenging the order dated 20.2.2001 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurgaon, in case titled Jhagru v. Chandan Singh etc.

2. The case set up by the plaintiffs, in brief in so far as relevant, was that the public path (Rasta Sare-am) in question (3 karam wide) of the Panchayat is in existence in front of the houses of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3, falling under Rectangle No.48 Khasra No.26. It is paved with pacca bricks meant for ingress and egress for public at large. The plaintiffs and other inhabitants of the village are using the public street/passage since the time immemorial, openly and peacefully. The plaintiffs claimed that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are strong headed persons and have encroached upon a portion of said public street, without any legal right and plaintiffs have clear apprehension that they would further encroach the street. In order to keep the encroachment intact, the appellant-defendant was stated to have filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short the Act) and obtained the ejectment order dated 20.2.2001 from the AC Ist Grade illegally by concealing the true facte, in which, the plaintiffs were not the parties.

3. Concisely, according to the plaintiffs that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have already encroached upon some portion and further intend to encroach upon the public rasta in dispute, without any legal right and the ejectment order dated 20.2.2001 obtained by Jhagru defendant (appellant) was void and illegal. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit (Annexure P1) for a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants in the manner as depicted here-in-above.

4. The contesting defendant Nos.2 and 3 resisted the suit and filed their written statement, inter-aiia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of suit; locus standi & cause of action of plaintiffs; jurisdiction of Civil Court and concealment of facts. They explained that the appellant-defendant No.3 had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act against Chander, Man Singh and Sher Singh, relatives of the plaintiffs and ejectment order was passed against them on 20.2.2001. On merits, the existence of Sare-am Rasta in question of the Panchayat in front of the houses of the parties was admitted. However, it was denied that the defendants have encroached upon any portion of it. The case of the defendants further proceeds that the public path was encroached upon by the plaintiffs after raising un-authorised construction to the extent of 9 feet in front of their houses and they submitted wrong site plan. Narrating the sequence of events. the defendants claimed that the indicated ejectment order passed by the AC 1st Grade is legal and the High Court has ordered its implementation in C.W.P.No.18163 of 2002, vide ord