Page 1 of 10

CR 2333/2015(O&M)

2023:PHHC:079451

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR 2333/2015(O&M)

Date of decision: 31.05.2023.

Jeet Singh

………………Petitioner

Vs.

Harbhajan Singh

………………Respondent

CORAM

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:-

Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present revision petition has been filed by the defendant

seeking setting aside of judgment and decree dated 22.4.2014 (Annexures P-

1 and P-2) passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Fatehgarh Sahib

whereby suit for possession filed by respondent-plaintiff under Section 6 of

the Specific Relief Act,1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect of

suit property as described in the head note of judgment (Annexure P-1), has

been decreed against the petitioner/defendant.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that suit property was owned and

possessed by one Hazara Singh son of Partap Singh upto 11.9.1981.

Thereafter, suit property was mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff vide

registered mortgage deed dated 1.7.1982 for a consideration of Rs.3000/-.

Admittedly, possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff at

the time of execution of agreement of mortgage. It is case of the plaintiff that

he remained in peaceful and continuous physical possession of the suit

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI

2023.07.03 17:17

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Page 2 of 10

CR 2333/2015(O&M)

2023:PHHC:079451

property up to 17.8.2009 when the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed by the

petitioner/defendant. In the suit property, even electric connection bearing

account no. P35 GF35/0400-YX was in the name of plaintiff. It is plaintiff’s

case that however, after dispossession, petitioner/defendant illegally and

forcibly got the electric meter installed in the suit property in his own name.

Though a police complaint was filed in this respect by the plaintiff, however,

it is averred that no action was taken by the authorities. It is in these

circumstances that the respondent filed the suit under Section 6 of the Act.

3.

Upon notice, petitioner/defendant appeared in the said suit

and stated before the trial court that he was using the property. It was also

submitted that Hazara Singh is real brother of father of the petitioner, and he

had no connection with the suit property which was exclusively owned by the

Balwant Singh; father of the petitioner/defendant.

4.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, ld. trial court vide

order dated 21.5.2010 framed the following issues: -

“1- Whether plaintiff was in possession of the suit

property? OPP

2- Whether plaintiff was dispossessed from the

suit property by the defendant on 17.08.09 as

alleged? OPP

3- If issue No.1 and 2 are decided in affirmative

whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for

possession U/S 6 of Specific Relief Act? OPP

4.Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to

file the present suit? OPD

5- Relief”.

5.

Upon perusal of facts, pleadings and evidence adduced before

it, the trial court decreed the suit with costs in favour of the

respondent/plaintiff, vide judgment and decree dated 22.4.2014 (Annexure P-

1). By way of decree (Annexure P-2) it was directed that “the suit of the

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI

2023.07.03 17:17

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Page 3 of 10

CR 2333/2015(O&M)

2023:PHHC:079451

plaintiff is decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to handover vacant

possession of the suit property to the plaintiff failing which the plaintiff shall

be at liberty to seek possession through aid of the execution agency.” Hence,

the present revision petition.

6.

It is vehemently submitted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner

that under Section 6 of the Act, there are three requirements