IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.02.2026 Pawan Kumar ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Hukam Chand ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Anavi Parnami, Advocate for the respondent.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Defendant is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit of the respondent/plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction, was partly decreed by the learned Trial Court; and was decreed in toto by the learned First Appellate Court in the Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the passage comprised in khasra No.96//11/1/2/3/4/2 (0-2) situated at village Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar marked with letters AECD shown red in the rough site plan attached with the plaint; And for Mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the super structure which has been constructed illegally upon the encroached area measuring 1'-6" X 32' in the abovesaid passage, shown Red with letters AEFG in rough site plan; and also constructed projection shown with letters and construction thereupon.

3. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff in the plaint that there is a passage towards southern side which was left in a family settlement in the year 1985 for ingress and outgress of the plaintiff. This passage is situated on the backside of the property of the defendant which he had purchased from Kailash Chand, brother of the plaintiff. It was stated that defendant was given no right to use the passage which was a private passage of the plaintiff and his brother. It was further alleged that defendant had constructed shop and made encroachment over area measuring 1’-6” x 32’ out of the passage. Accordingly, present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was filed on 11.12.2007.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bilaspur had partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff as follows:-

“16. As a sequel to my above findings, particularly on issue no. 1, suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed to the effect that as per report of Local Commissioner dated 06.06.2008 Ex. P4 and report dated 18.12.2007 defendant is liable to remove four temporary pillars of 4' height raised in the street in dispute. Defendant is directed to remove the said encroachment within two months from today. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.”

5. Against the above said judgment, respondent/plaintiff had preferred Civil Appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri; whereby the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court was modified and suit of the plaintiff was decreed in toto vide judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017 as follows:-

“23. As an upshot of the above discussion, the present appeal is hereby accepted with no order as to costs. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant is hereby decreed with costs in toto and thus, in addition to the relief granted by the learned lower court, which has already been implemented as per the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, further decree for permanent Injunction is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant restraining the defendant/respondent from Interfering into the use of the passage in question by the plaintiff-appellant; further, a decree for mandatory injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff directing him the defendant to remove the encroachment made by him over 32'X 1'-6" over the rasta/street in question by dint of demarcation report Ex. P4, within a period of two months from today.”

6. Hence, the present second appeal by the defe