IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

RSA-2972-2012 (O&M) Reserved on:-09.09.2025 Date of Decision : 10.09.2025 Chain Singh and Others ....Appellants VERSUS Swaran Lal and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the respondents.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU,J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants– appellants against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2009 of the learned trial Court has been reversed.

Brief Facts

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff –Swaran Lal filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from carving out any passage or rasta in the suit land measuring 7 Kanals 7 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 171, Khatuni No. 295/1, Rectangle No. 24, Killa No. 12 (7-7) situated in Village Bhaini Bangar, H.B No.530, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. It was pleaded that he along with his co-sharers Kewal Krishan, Ashok Kumar, Sawarno Devi, Bimla Devi and Smt. Laj Wanti was the owner and in cultivating possession of the said land. According to the plaintiff, the defendants whose land abuts the suit property had no right, title or interest therein, yet they were threatening to forcibly interfere in his possession and were adamant to carve out a passage.

3. Upon notice, defendants No. 1 to 4 contested the suit by way of joint written statement, whereas the suit against defendant No. 5 was dismissed as withdrawn. In the written statement, the defendants raised preliminary objections that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands. On merits, they admitted the ownership of the plaintiff but pleaded that there exists a passage of 2 karams wide on the western side of the land in dispute which leads to Ahata Chah and further to their land. The passage, according to them, runs through Khewat No. 254, Khatauni No. 414, Rectangle No. 24, Killa No. 9/1 (6-18), Khewat No. 407, Khatauni No. 670, Rectangle No. 24, Killa No. 26 (1-2). It was asserted that this passage was in existence since consolidation, duly shown in the revenue record, and its demarcation was carried out on 17.11.2004 by the revenue authorities. The defendants pleaded that after the said demarcation, the plaintiff demolished the demarcation pillars and encroached upon the passage.

4. Defendants No. 1 to 3 also filed a counter-claim seeking mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to remove the encroachment made on the passage as shown in blue colour in the site plan and to restrain him from obstructing their use thereof.

5. The plaintiff filed reply to the counter-claim denying the existence of any such rasta. He denied that any demarcation was conducted by the revenue authorities and also denied encroachment on any passage. He raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

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

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

3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? If so, its effect? OPD

4. Whether the defendants are entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction on the ground mentioned in the counter claim? OPD

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

6. Whether the counter claim is barred by time? OPD

7. Whether the counter claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPP 8. Relief.

7. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, Ravinder Singh as PW-2 and Bawa Singh as PW-3, and then closed his evidence.

8. On the other hand, the defendants examined Ranjit Singh, Halqa Patwari as DW-1, J.S. Dhanjal, Draftsman as DW-2, and defendant Chain Singh himself as DW-3. They also t