IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.02.2026 Baldev Singh .......... Appellant-plaintiff Versus Municipal Council, Kapurthala .......... Respondent-defendant.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present:- Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the appellant-plaintiff.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2023 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kapurthala (hereinafter to be referred as “First Appellate Court”), whereby an appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2020 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-IV, Kapurthala (hereinafter to be referred as “trial Court”), in his suit for permanent injunction, was dismissed; thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.

[2] Briefly stating, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that he was owner of the suit land as detailed in the head note of the plaint as well as shown in the site plan. It was pleaded that since he (plaintiff) was the owner of the said land, thus, no relief was claimed against his brother Jagbir Singh who was merely recorded as owner in the said Khasra number; however, had already disposed off the area more than his entitlement in the above said Khasra number that is why he was impleaded as party. It was further pleaded that the respondent-defendant had cut off the ‘L’ share area as a passage to be used by persons residing in a private colony falling on north-east side of the area despite the fact that the area falling under the Khasra No. 4826 was exclusively owned by the plaintiff and neither the defendant nor any person residing in the locality situated on northern-eastern side shown in the site plan had got any legal right to use that ‘L’ shape area, as there were roads earmarked clearly for the entire area as shown in the site plan; four in number of 20 feet each. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff never consented to respondent-defendant to convert his private land as public passage. Moreover, it was pleaded that since there were four roads already available, at the instance of plaintiff and his brother Jagbir Singh, who developed this residential area in the land owned by them; therefore, the defendant had no right to convert the ‘L’ shape area to be a public passage out of the land exclusively owned by the plaintiff. It was also averred that the plaintiff had already filed a suit pertaining to Khasra No.4844 which was dismissed in default impleading Municipal Council also a party and was yet to be restored but the same pertained to different Khasra number. Hence the present suit was filed.

[3] Upon notice, the respondent-defendant appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit and inter alia prayed for dismissal of the suit.

[4] Replication to the written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent plaintiff in which all the facts pleaded by the defendant in the written statement were denied and those pleaded in the plaint were reiterated by the appellant-plaintiff.

[5] On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the 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 plaintiff has not served notice U/s 49 of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 upon the defendant before filing the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hand and has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Court? OPD

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

5. Whether the Suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

6. Whether suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD

8. Relief. ”

[6] The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 17.01.2020, dismissed the suit