118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 11.03.2025 Gurdip Singh .....Appellant Versus Nirmal Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Parvez Chugh, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Setia, Advocate for the appellant.

PANKAJ JAIN, J.(Oral) CM No.18929-C of 2018 This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 52 days in filing the instant appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of

52 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

CM No.18927-C of 2018 This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 12 days in re-filing the instant appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of

12 days in re-filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

Defendant No.1 is in second appeal.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. appellant as defendant No.1, respondent No.1 as plaintiff, respondent No.2 as defendant No.6, respondents No.3 & 4 as defendants No.2 & 3, respondent No.5 as respondent No.5 and respondent No.6 as respondent No.4.

3. Plaintiff filed suit for possession of immoveable property in the shape of a residential house measuring about 6 Marlas as detailed out in the headnote of the plaint. Further relief sought was for permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 5 from changing the nature of the property.

4. As per plaintiff, he along with defendant No.6 is owner of Khasra No.138 as per Jamabandi for the year 2009-2010. He is co-sharer to the extent of 5/6. Plaintiff claims to have constructed house over his share of land in Khasra No.138. Mohan Singh father of defendant No.1 along with defendants No.1 to 5 used to reside in the house in question as licensee under the plaintiff. The plaintiff permitted defendants No.1 to 5 and Mohan Singh to reside in the house as they intended to build their own house in the village and were related. Plaintiff claims that despite having made repeated requests to defendants No.1 to 5 to vacate the house and hand-over the vacant possession, defendants failed to vacate the house. Plaintiff only revoked the licence in September, 2011 and is entitled for possession.

5. Suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 5 denying the claim of the plaintiff. It was claimed that defendants No.1 to 5 and late Mohan Singh, father of defendant No.1, are owners of the suit property. Order of partition, dated 30.01.1989, passed by Revenue Court re: Khasra Nos.137, 138, 144, 145, 317, 81, 264 is null and void. Defendants further raised plea of adverse possession. They claimed to be in possession of the suit property since 30.01.1989 and claimed that since then their possession over the suit property has remained uninterrupted, continuous and peaceful, thus they have become owners of the suit property.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession of suit property as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

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

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

6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

7. Whether the suit is not property valued for the purse of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

8. Relief.”

7. In order to prove his case, plaintiff stepped into witness-box as