IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 14.01.2026 INDERJIT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS .... Appellants VERSUS KHUSHWANT RAI @ SHINDA GROVER .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. K.S. Lakhanpal, Advocate for Mr. Arunjeet Singh Kakkar, Advocate for the appellants.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff- appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2019 passed by the learned First Appellate Court.

2. Briefly, the facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- appellants herein filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants therein (respondent herein and one Subhash Kumar-defendant No.2) from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-appellants over the shop measuring 20’ x 22’6” as fully described in the plaint. Counterclaim was filed by defendant No.1 (respondent herein) also claiming permanent injunction for restraining the plaintiff-appellants from interfering in his peaceful possession of the same shop on the ground that he was in possession of the shop. The case set up by the plaintiff-appellants was that originally the Municipal Council, Faridkot was the owner of the shop and that the plaintiff-appellants were tenants of the Municipal Council, Faridkot for the last 70 years. It was further the case set up that the father of the plaintiff- appellants was a tenant and in possession of the shop in question. The plaintiff-appellants had regularly been paying the rent/teh bazari to the Municipal Council, Faridkot till date. It was further the case that the plaintiff- appellants had no dispute with the Municipal Council, Faridkot and that the defendants have no concern with the disputed shop. However, the defendants want to dispossess the plaintiff-appellants from the shop in dispute. Hence the suit by the plaintiff-appellants for restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession.

3. On notice, defendant No.1 (respondent herein) appeared through counsel and filed his written statement raising various preliminary objections including that the plaintiff-appellants have not approached the Court with clean hands. It was the case set up that defendant No.1 (respondent herein) and the plaintiff-appellants were running the shop jointly and that the shop was taken on rent in the name of the plaintiff-appellants. On 02.05.2011 they separated their business and the plaintiff-appellants left the shop and defendant No.1 (respondent herein) remained in possession of the shop alone. It was further the case that the plaintiff-appellants had sworn an affidavit dated 02.05.2011 and also moved an application to the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Faridkot for changing the tenancy in the name of defendant No.1 (respondent herein). It was further the stand that defendant No.2 had no concern with the shop in dispute and that he had been impleaded unnecessarily. On merits it was admitted that the shop was in the ownership of the Municipal Council, Faridkot which was on rent in the name of the plaintiff-appellants. The facts as narrated in the preliminary objections were reiterated. It was further the case set up in the counterclaim that the plaintiff- appellants forcibly want to dispossess defendant No.1 (respondent herein) under the garb of the present suit. Written statement was filed to the counterclaim of defendant No.1 (respondent herein).

4. Replication was filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and concealed the material facts? OPP

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

5-A. Whether counter claimant is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPCC

6. R