Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
H.S. Madaan, JJ.
Shiv Mohan Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Duggal(since Deceased) Through His Lrs & Ors. - Respondents
RSA-926-2015(O&M) and RSA-5760-2014(O&M)
Decided On : 16-10-2019
Injunction - Property Dispute - Punjab Municipal Corporation Act - Sections 269, 270 - The court discussed the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, specifically Sections 269 and 270, which regulate the demolition of illegal constructions and the procedure for filing an appeal. The court highlighted that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the matter, and the plaintiffs had an equally efficacious remedy to file an appeal before the District Judge under Section 269 of the PMC Act. The judgments passed by the lower courts were deemed perverse, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was allowed, and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation and private individuals to prevent interference with their property. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were using the property for commercial purposes without the required license and causing nuisance to the neighbors. The trial court partially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, which was later modified by the District Judge. The defendants filed appeals, which were accepted, and the suit was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the injunction as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, and the plaintiffs had an equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under the PMC Act. The judgments passed by the lower courts were deemed perverse, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was allowed, and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction, the maintainability of the suit, and the entitlement of the defendants/counter claimants to relief and recovery of damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the matter, and the plaintiffs had an equally efficacious remedy to file an appeal before the District Judge under Section 269 of the PMC Act. The judgments passed by the lower courts were deemed perverse, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The suit itself was not maintainable and deserved dismissal.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts were set aside.
JUDGMENT
H.S. Madaan, J. - By this judgment, I shall dispose of two RSAs i.e. RSA-926-2015 filed on behalf of appellant Shiv Mohan Sharma and RSA-5760-2014 filed on behalf of appellants Shiv Mohan Sharma and others.
2. In nutshell, facts of the case are that plaintiffs Ashok Kumar Duggal, aged about 54 years and his younger brother Surinder Kumar Duggal, aged about 45 years, residents of House No.B-XXXII 447/2/4, Street No.2, Sartaj Nagar, Noorwala Road, Ludhiana had brought a suit bearing C.S. No.377 of 7.3.2005 against Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) seeking a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, its officials, employees etc. from changing the nature or from causing any damage/demolition to the existing construction of the house shown as red in the site plan attached with the plaint comprised in khasra No.74, Khata No.395/413 as per jamabandi for the year 1991-92 situated within the revenue estate of village Taraf Sekhewal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and from committing any act detrimental to the interest of the plaintiffs to the above said property.
3. As per the version of the plaintiffs, they are owners in possession of the suit property inasmuch as their father Sh. Singh Pal Duggal had purchased the property having area 194 square yards with specific boundaries vide a registered sale deed dated 4.12.1994; after his death, the plaintiffs have inherited the property and mutation has been sanctioned in their favour; the house was entered in the name of father of the plaintiffs in the municipal record and it is being assessed to house tax since the year 1994; the electricity connection has also been got installed in the house and plaintiffs are paying the electricity bill regularly; the plaintiffs are residing in that house doing the petty job of hosiery and fabrication under the name and style of M/s Duggal Fabricators; the Municipal Corporation had issued licence to the plaintiffs from time to time; the plaintiffs have got installed commercial electricity connection in the house for running the said business; that the Food & Supply Department had also issued ration card to the plaintiffs; the plaintiffs had also purchased LIC policies at that address; however the officials of Municipal Corporation at the instance of certain persons, namely, Shiv Mohan Sharma, Ravinder Sharma, Jatinder Sharma, Narinder Sharma and Usha Sharma started harassing the plaintiffs in the year 1999 causing interference in the possession and use of house by the plaintiffs; as such the plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit titled 'Ashok Kumar Versus Shiv Mohan Sharma', which was decreed and defendants in that suit were restrained from causing interference into the peaceful working of the plaintiffs in the suit property vide judgment/decree dated 1.4.2003; Shiv Mohan Sharma etc. then approached defendant - Corporation, which issued threats to demolish the house in question and to do illegal activities; that a day prior to filing of the suit, the officials of defendant - Corporation came to the suit property and tried to change the nature of the house in question and threatened to demolish the same, not listening to the requests of the plaintiffs not to do so. Hence the plaintiffs had filed the suit in question in the Court of law. On getting notice, the defendant - corporation appeared and filed a written statement contesting the suit raising preliminary objections that no notice under Section 396 of the PMC Act was served upon the defendant before filing of the suit, therefore, the suit was not maintainable; that the plaintiffs had violated the provisions of Sections 269, 270 of the said Act by raising illegal construction; the plaintiffs had been served notices under those provisions on 3.3.2000, notices were duly received by them and they filed reply to the same on 30.3.2000 by making vague allegations; that the construction raised illegally was liable to be demolished; that the suit was not ma
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
