##PAGE1##

CM-8566-C-2023 in/and RSA-4786-2016 (O&M) - 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

202 CM-8566-C-2023 in/and RSA-4786-2016 (O&M)

Date of decision: 24.03.2026

Kuldeep and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Raj Singh ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the applicant/respondent. Mr. Gobind Dhanda, Advocate

for the non-applicant/appellants.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-8566-C-2023

This is an application under Section 151 CPC filed by the

applicant/respondent for vacation of status quo order dated 04.12.2019;

and fixing the actual date of hearing in the main Appeal.

2. Heard.

3. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an afÏdavit of the applicant/respondent, instant application is allowed; and the main case is taken up on Board today itself.

RSA-4786-2016 (O&M)

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the

appellants/defendants against the concurrent judgments and decrees of DIVYANSHI

2026.03.25 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CM-8566-C-2023 in/and RSA-4786-2016 (O&M) - 2 -

the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent,

for permanent injunction, has been decreed by both the District Courts.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the present suit against the appellants seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and dispossessing the plaintiff from the Baithak/house (suit

property) situated in abadi deh, as fully described in the plaint.

3. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that since the time of his forefathers, plaintiff is owner in possession of the said Baithak/house situated in abadi deh. It was averred that the electricity bills, water charges et cetera were regularly paid by the plaintiff. Now defendants wanted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Plaintiff had requested defendants not to do so. Finally, defendants had refused to accede to the request of the plaintiff. Hence, present suit for permanent

injunction was filed on 18.08.2010.

4. Upon notice, defendants had resisted the suit by filing written statement and pleading that defendants are lawful owners in possession of suit property for long time. It was alleged that plaintiff had filed the present suit with ulterior motive to usurp the suit property which was owned and possessed by the defendants. It was contended that electricity bills, water charges, Chullah tax or photographs et cetera do not give any title over the suit property to the plaintiff. It was denied that the

DIVYANSHI

2026.03.25 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CM-8566-C-2023 in/and RSA-4786-2016 (O&M) - 3 -

defendants wanted to dispossess the plaintiff. Accordingly, dismissal of the

suit was prayed for.

5. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak had decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 19.08.2014

in the following manner: -

“A decree for permanent injunction is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that defendants are restrained from interfering and dispossessing the plaintiff

over the property in question forcibly and illegally.”

6. The Civil Appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated

18.04.2016. Hence, present Second Appeal by the defendants.

7. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that learned District Courts below were in error in non-suiting the appellants as they failed to appreciate that the plaintiff and the defendants are closely related being successors-in-interest of Sh. Bichha Ram. As such, both the parties are owners in possession of the suit property. It is submitted that learned District Courts have committed legal error by holding that