IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

237 Date of decision : 20.01.2026 Nirmal Kaur ...... Appellant versus Gurmit Singh and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Saachi Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for applicant-respondent No.2.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

On oral request made by counsel for the appellant, main case is taken on Board today itself, for final disposal.

CM-12137-C-2015 This is an application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for impleading Satnam Singh son of Makhan Singh son of Veer Singh, resident of Batala Road, Qaidan Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur as respondent No.3.

Notice of the application.

Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Saachi Mahajan accepts notice on behalf of non-applicant/appellant and pleads no objection.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Respondent No.3 is impleaded as a party. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

Main case

1. Plaintiff is in second appeal.

2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of permanent injunction claiming to be lessee over the suit property under defendant No.2 by virtue of registered lease deed dated 02.02.1999. The owner-defendant No.2 supported the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 contested the suit.

3. Defendant No.1 claimed tenancy under defendant No.2 on the strength of agreement of rent 27.07.1998 and asserted that he has raised boundary wall and room over the suit property. He further claimed his possession on the basis of khasra girdawri corrected by revenue authorities vide order order dated 07.09.2000. He strongly contested the status of Nanak Singh as attorney of plaintiff-Nirmal Kaur. 4. Court of the First Instance framed following issues on the basis of pleadings:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as for? OPP

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

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

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

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false and frivolous?

OPD

6. Relief.”

5. Trial Court relied upon ocular evidence of DW1 and DW2 to hold that they proved the evidence of defendant over the suit property, whereas the plaintiff miserably failed to prove his possession and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

6. The findings stand affirmed by the learned Lower Appellate Court.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below. It has been contended that defendant No.1 earlier filed suit seeking injunction against the plaintiff. The plaint was accompanied by an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Injunction application filed by defendant No.1 in the said suit was dismissed vide order dated 11.09.1999. Defendant No.1 preferred appeal. He withdrew the miscellaneous appeal as well as suit. The Courts below completely ignored material evidence on record and have decided the suit, as if it was a suit filed by Nanak Singh and not by Nirmal Kaur.

8. Respondent No.1 has remained unrepresented despite service. Mr. Sharma, counsel for respondent No.2 submits that defendant No.2 has supported the claim of the plaintiff.

9. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

10. From the perusal of the findings recorded by the both the Courts below, it is explicit that both the Courts below were swayed away by criminal proceedings initiated by Nirmal Kaur against her attorney through whom the present suit has been filed.

11. In the present suit, Nirmal Kaur through her attorney claimed to be lessee under defendant No.2. In fact, both the parties are claiming to be tenants under defendant No.2. Thus, the ownership of defendant No.2 is not in disput