IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (119)

Date of Decision:-11.02.2026 RANJOT SINGH … Appellant Versus WAZIR SINGH ... Respondent ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr.Rajesh Lamba, Advocate; Mr.Rahul Gugnani, Advocate &

Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate for Caveator/Respondent.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellant–plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad, whereby the findings of the learned Trial Court were affirmed. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tohana, vide judgment and decree dated 04.02.2019, had dismissed the suit filed by the appellant–plaintiff seeking permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The appellant calls in question the concurrent findings of both Courts below as being legally unsustainable and factually erroneous.

2. The plaintiff asserts continuous possession of the suit property for the past 50–60 years and claims exclusive ownership and possession thereof, denying any right, title, or interest of the defendant. It is alleged that the defendant has threatened forcible and unlawful interference and dispossession, including on 20.10.2016. The plaintiff contends that such acts would cause irreparable loss, warranting protection of his lawful rights through the present suit.

3. Upon service of notice, the defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction, mis- joinder and non-joinder of parties, and concealment of material facts. On merits, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff had illegally encroached upon a plot allotted to him by the Gram Panchayat, which fact stood confirmed in official demarcation proceedings. It was further pleaded that efforts were made before the SDM and police authorities for removal of the encroachment. The plaintiff’s claims were denied, and dismissal of the suit with special costs was sought. A counter-claim was also filed seeking removal of the alleged encroachment.

4. The plaintiff filed a reply to the counter-claim, contending that the defendant had neither specified the date of allotment of the disputed plot by the Gram Panchayat nor explained his failure to raise any construction thereon after such alleged allotment. The plaintiff prayed for dismissal of the counter-claim and for a decree in terms of the suit.

4.1. In view of the rival and contradictory pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 18.08.2018, framed the following issues for determination:-

1. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent in-

junction, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

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

4. Whether this Court has not the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-

joinder of necessary parties? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed true and material facts from the Court? OPD

7. Relief.

5. Upon the framing of issues, both parties were afforded full opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. Upon a comprehensive appreciation of the material on record, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit and allowed the counter claim.

5.1. The appeal preferred by the appellant–plaintiff was thereafter dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court, recording inter alia the following observations:–

“Thus, in the light of the above detailed appreciation of the evidence as well as contentions of both the sides, the appeal in hand is hereby dismissed. Plaintiff is directed to hand over the vaca