IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Judgment reserved on 20.08.2025 Judgment pronounced on 16.09.2025 SMT. BACHITTAR KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

... APPELLANTS VERSUS PATIALA MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, PATIALA AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS COCP-691-2002 (O&M)

THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PATIALA ... PETITIONER VERSUS RAJINDER SINGH SIDHU AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Salathia, Advocate for the appellants (in RSA-134 of 1993) and for the respondent(s) in COCP-691-2002.

Mr. Rupinder Singh Khosla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yogender Verma, Advocate for the respondent-MC Patiala (in RSA-134 of 1993) and for the petitioner(s) in COCP-691-2002.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant, whose suit for permanent injunction was decreed by the learned Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 03.12.1988. However, the first appeal preferred by the defendant was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.1992 by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff had sought a decree for permanent injunction, asserting her status to be of co-sharer in the suit land and claiming to be in exclusive and continuous possession thereof for over 40 years. It is the case of plaintiff that the defendants, without any right or title, have recently started interfering in her peaceful possession by attempting to dump debris and rubbish on the suit property using municipal trucks. Hence, the plaintiff sought restrain orders against the defendants from causing any obstruction or nuisance in respect of the suit land.

3. Vide their joint written statement, the defendants had contested the suit by asserting that the suit property is Shamlat Deh land, which vests in the Municipal Committee. It is further claimed that the land in question is a pond ('Johar') and has remained under the possession and control of the Municipal Committee. The defendants had denied the plaintiff’s claim of exclusive possession and have contended that she has no legal right, title, or interest in the suit property. Apart from denying the plaintiff's possession over the suit property and asserting that the land in question is Shamlat Deh comprised in pond under the ownership and control of the Municipal Committee, the defendants also raised several preliminary objections. These included objections regarding: (i) non- joinder of necessary parties; (ii) failure to serve notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); (iii) lack of jurisdiction of the civil court; and (iv)

non-payment of requisite court fee.

4. From the pleadings of the partis, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is co-snarer of the suit land? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit property for the last 40 years? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable without impleading the administrator? OPD.

4. What is the effect of non-service of notice U/s 80 CP C? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not property valued for the purposes of court fee and juris-diction? OPD.

6. What is the effect of non-service of notice under Sec. 49 of the P.M. Act? OPD.

7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?

OPP.

9. Relief.”

5. The learned Court of first instance, after appreciating the evidence led by the plaintiff, including the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 and documentary evidence such as copy of mutation, jamabandi, and khasra girdawari (Exhibits P- 4 to P-13), concluded that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and accordingly decreed the suit. The Trial Court also took into consideration a previously decided suit, i.e., Civil Suit No. 207 of 1971, filed by the plaintiff against Pavittar Singh and Jaggu Mal for permanent injunction in respect of Khasra No. 921, which