IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.09.2025 Shavinderpal Puri …Appellant Versus Suresh Singla …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

This is plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Moga, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga, vide which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, party shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into the lawful and peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from ejecting or dispossessing the plaintiff from the shop/house situated at Partap Road, Moga, Opposite Pala Ply wala, Moga (fully described in the plaint) and further restraining the defendant from demolishing any part of the common stairs between the shops of plaintiff and the defendant and further from making any kind of construction by demolishing any part of the stairs.

4. It was claimed by the plaintiff that he had purchased the aforesaid shop/house along with co-ownership rights with the defendant in the stairs in dispute from Indu Bala and Madhu Bala, vide sale deed dated 20.02.2009 and the defendant was the owner of adjoining shop i.e., Navketan Radio. It was further asserted that the plaintiff and the defendant were the co-owners of the stairs in dispute and they had been using the same jointly since long. The factum of the stairs being common was also mentioned in the aforesaid sale deed. It was further averred that the defendant had started threatening the plaintiff to interfere in the lawful and peaceful possession of the plaintiff and to eject/dispossess him from the suit property. The defendant was bent upon to demolish the common stairs in order to extend his shop illegally, forcibly and without following due course of law.

5. Defendant filed his written statement averring therein that the stairs in question was the private property of the defendant and not common with the plaintiff. It was further averred that the plaintiff had intentionally not mentioned Khasra, Khewat and Khatauni numbers, as had been reflected in the jamabandi for the year 2012-13. The site plan produced by the plaintiff clearly indicated that he had purchased only 1 marla 6 sarsai out of Khasra No.3378 and such area was in his possession as well. The staircase was exclusively constructed in the share of the defendant, which was so indicated in the sale deed dated 28.08.2007 vide which the defendant had purchased his property. The remaining averments were denied.

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

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file his suit? OPD

3. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD

4. Whether suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?OPD

5. Relief.”

7. Parties led their respective evidence.

8. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated

05.02.2024 passed by the first Appellate Court.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both Courts have failed to take into consideration that the staircase was already in existence prior to the purchase of the shop/house by the appellant in 2009. It is further argued that at the time of the purchase of the aforesaid shop/house by the plaintiff, the first floor thereof was already in existence and the staircase was the only way to access the first floor. It is further argued that the staircase having been in existence