Dr. Shekher Dhawan, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 10.05.1988 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar whereby appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 04.11.1986 passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Jalandhar was accepted. For convenience sake, hereinafter, reference to parties is being made as per their status in civil suit.

2. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that the plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation Jalandhar from demolishing the construction shown in red colour of property No. BXXXVIII-734 situated in Bhargava Camp, Jalandhar City. As per plaintiff, he had purchased said house from the Rehabilitation Department. The structure shown in red colour in the site plan has been in existence since 1972 and the plaintiff had been using the same for his residential purpose. Later on, the defendant-Corporation started asserting that the plaintiff had encroached on a part of the public street to the extent of North 23'-6", South 16'-2", East 33' and West 33'-2" whereas in fact there is no public street on the spot. The said land belongs to the plaintiff and is part and parcel of his house. The defendant also served a legal notice to demolish the disputed construction and the said notice is illegal, null and void and liable to be struck down.

3. The case of the defendant-Corporation is that the disputed site is part of the public street and the plaintiff had raised a construction on the same by constructing boundary wall and two rooms. Notice was served upon the plaintiff. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was also challenged and the defendant prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. On these facts, learned trial Court settled the following issues and the parties were put to trial:

"1. Whether the plaintiff in possession of the property in dispute for the last about 12 years? OPP

2. Whether the property in dispute is public street vesting in Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar? OPD

3. Whether issue No. 2 is proved, whether notice dated 22.12.85, served upon the plaintiff by the defendant is illegal and without jurisdiction? OPP

4. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP

6. Relief."

Both the parties led their respective evidence.

5. On the basis of material and evidence available on file, learned trial Judge decided issues No. 1 to 3 against the plaintiff. Issues No. 4 and 5 were also decided against the plaintiff and consequently the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

6. The plaintiff challenged the said findings recorded in the judgment and decree by the learned trial Judge before the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar and the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar reversed the findings of learned trial Court on Issues No. 1 to 3 and accepted the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant-respondent by way of injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from interfering in the peaceful possession of property in question and the defendant-Corporation was restrained from demolishing the construction shown in red colour in the plan Exhibit P-1.

7. Being aggrieved of passing of said judgment and decree dated 10.05.1988, this is the second Regular Second Appeal before this Court.

8. When the appeal was admitted, no substantial question of law was framed. Even no substantial question of law has been placed on record during the pendency of appeal. However, at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that following substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal for consideration by this Court:

"Whether this Court has got jurisd

Click Here to Read the rest of this document