IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.01.2026 Vinod Kumar ....Appellant V/s Naresh Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Ms. Dhivya Jerath, Advocate, for the appellant.

(Through Virtual Mode)

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

This is plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhiwani, vide which the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of plot measuring 10 marlas (fully described in the plaint) situated within the revenue estate of village Loharu, District Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as `the suit property’).

4. It was claimed that the plaintiff was a biswedar of village Loharu and that he had purchased the suit property from one Smt. Saroj wife of Surender Pal, vide registered sale deed dated 21.05.1990. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff on 01.04.2000. After the purchase of the suit property, the plaintiff was handed over possession thereof by Smt. Saroj and the plaintiff had been in possession as owner of the same since then.

5. It was further claimed that in the month of December, 2012, the plaintiff had affixed pillars upon the suit property. The plaintiff further asserted that in the first week of January, 2014, the neighbours of the plaintiff informed him that the defendants were adamant to take forcible possession of the suit property by damaging the pillars. The plaintiff visited Loharu and had moved application dated 10.01.2014 against the defendants to the SHO, Loharu, but no action was taken. It was further pleaded that the defendants being strong headed persons, having no respect for law, were habitual in getting their work done forcibly and were adamant to take forcible possession of the suit property.

6. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing a joint written statement, taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus standi;

estoppel and the Civil Court having no jurisdiction. On merits, it was asserted that one Kamla Devi (wife of defendant No.2), who was a proper and necessary party, was not impleaded and, thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed. It was further averred that said Kamla Devi had purchased plot measuring 363 yards about 6 years back from Ram Singh (defendant No.2) vide sale deed dated 30.04.2014. It was further averred that said Kamla Devi was also owner of plot measuring 12 marlas, having purchased the same vide sale deed dated 04.03.1993. She had erected pillars around her plot, but the same were removed by the plaintiff illegally as he wanted to take forcible possession, but he was not allowed to do so. On account of the same, he had moved a false application to the police and had also filed a false case. It was further asserted that in the garb of ownership of the suit property, he wanted to take forcible possession of the plot of said Kamla Devi. Still further, it was the case of the defendants that the plaintiff had no right to seek injunction against another co-sharer and the proper remedy was to seek partition.

7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for?

OPP.

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

5. Relief.”

8. Parties led their respective evidence.

9. Th