JUDGMENT : 

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants– plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed, and against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, Ludhiana, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissing the appeal.

Brief Facts

2. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from closing the manned level crossing No. C-23 and from encroaching upon, blocking, interfering with or causing obstruction in the use and enjoyment of the disputed passage comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 330/316/358, Khasra No. 610.

3. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that plaintiffs No.1 to 4 were villagers and former representatives of the village, and plaintiff No.5 was the Gram Panchayat of Village Khera. It was averred that the passage in dispute crossed the Ludhiana–Dhuri Railway Line and that the Railways had installed a manned level crossing keeping in view the flow of traffic. It was further pleaded that the Government of Punjab initiated acquisition proceedings for setting up a dry port in the area and thereafter handed over the project to defendant No.2, Punjab Logistics Infrastructure Limited, which purchased land adjoining both sides of the passage in dispute. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No.2 was fully aware of the existence of the passage but intended to close the same so as to merge the land into one compact unit for the dry port project. It was further alleged that such closure would deprive villagers of their easementary rights, block the natural flow of flood water and cause serious hardship. It was also pleaded that no lawful enquiry or hearing of villagers was ever conducted before proposing the closure of the manned level crossing. Despite issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC, the defendants did not redress the grievance, compelling the plaintiffs to file the suit.

4. Defendant No.1, Union of India through Northern Railways, filed its written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi and absence of cause of action. It was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in law and that the plaintiffs had no enforceable right to seek injunction. It was further pleaded that decisions regarding opening or closing of level crossings fall within the exclusive domain of the Railways and competent authorities, and that the plaintiffs could not claim any vested right in respect thereof.

5. Defendant No.2, Punjab Logistics Infrastructure Limited, also filed a separate written statement raising objections regarding maintainability, locus standi and suppression of material facts. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs had no legal right, title or interest in the disputed land or passage and that the suit was false and frivolous. It was further pleaded that defendant No.2 had lawfully purchased the land for development of the dry port project and that there was no illegal encroachment or obstruction as alleged. Defendant No.2 denied any intention to illegally close the passage and asserted that all actions were in accordance with law and with the knowledge of competent authorities.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the present suit is without any cause of action? OPD

3. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD

4. Whether the present suit is false and frivolous? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

6. Relief.

7. To substantiate their case, the plaintiffs led both oral and documentary evidence. Plaintiff No.1 examined PW-1 Jalora Singh, who tendered his duly sworn a