Injunction cannot be granted in favor of a trespasser or against the true owner. An appeal must be filed by a competent person with a personal interest in the matter.

Jasbir Singh, J. - Respondent alongwith Sant Nirankari Mandal, Gobindgarh, upon receipt of a notice under Section 220 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (in short the Act), calling upon the Sant Nirankari Mandal to demolish Nirankari Bhawan, filed a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer that the appellant and its administrator be restrained from demolishing the property, in dispute and also not to interfere in the said property. It was case of the respondent-plaintiff that construction was raised about five years back, when an earlier suit filed by the respondent entered into a compromise. Thereafter, even a resolution was passed by the appellant-municipal committee with a recommendation that property, in dispute, be leased out to Sant Nirankari Mandal for a period of 99 years. Under these circumstances, it was alleged that issuance of notice was not as per law. In written statement, the appellant-defendant averred that the land belongs to it and the construction thereon has been made forcibly and without any permission from the municipal committee. Passing of the resolution was not denied. Trial Court, on appraisal of evidence of the parties, framed the following relevant issues :

"Whether plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for on the grounds mentioned in the plaint ? OPP".

2. After contest, the trial Court, came to a conclusion that the land underneath the construction in dispute, was not in the ownership of the respondent. Trial Court, by taking note of provisions of Section 13-A of the Act, came to a conclusion that the vacant plot was being used as a street by residents of the area, it belongs to the municipal committee and construction raised thereon was forcible and without sanction. It was further noticed by the trial Court that. before issuance of notice under Section 220 of the Act. Administrator of the municipal committee had issued notice under Section 172 and 195 of the Act on 15.7.1996, when unauthorized construction was being raised by the respondent-plaintiff. It was also held that to prove averment that the matter was compromised between the parties, in an earlier suit, neither the plaint, nor order passed in that suit was brought on record, to support that contention. Trial Court has further noticed that notices, which were issued earlier, under Sections 172 and 195 of the Act, were on record of the Court though those notices were not formally proved on record, the Court took into consideration those documents. Suit was dismissed. Appeal was allowed by the appellate Court below and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were reversed. Injunction was granted against the appellant municipal committee, not to demolish the construction, in dispute. However, liberty was granted to the appellant to take action as permissible under the law. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of committee, has vehemently contended that the appellate Court below has gone wrong in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, by observing that the property, in dispute (the plot, over which construction has been raised), was not in the ownership of the municipal committee. He has referred to documents on record to say that the appellate Court below has not looked into evidence and has decided to the contrary in a very arbitrary manner. He further argued that the appeal filed by the respondent was not competent as no resolution passed by Sant Nirankari Mandal, which is a registered body, was brought on record. It was further argued that the suit filed, was in a representative capacity, as the permission was not sought from the Court to file the said suit, the same was not maintainable.

4. Arguments raised by counsel for the appellant, were vehemently opposed by counsel, appearing for the respondent. He has stated that as the municipal committee has passed a resolution to lease out this land to Sant Nirankari Mandal for a period of 99 years, the issuance of notice