IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

118 RSA No. 2251 of 2025 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION :- 09.10.2025 Hari Ram (since deceased) through his LRs and others ...Appellants Versus Saneh Pal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the appellants.

***

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant defendants against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur dated 01.02.2025 whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam is reversed and suit of the respondent plaintiff was decreed.

2. Briefly stated, a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiffs claiming that the disputed site as shown in the site plan is public street bearing Nos. 597(0-3), 588(0-4) and that they are using passages for ingress and egress to their property. The property of appellant defendants abuts the passages. They have no right to create any kind of obstruction in the passage or to encroach upon the passage. Appellant defendant No. 1 has put some earth in passage bearing No. 597 to raise the level and appellant defendants No. 2 and 3 have constructed a Khurli at point A1 shown in the site plan Anenxure ‘X’ in passage bearing No. 588 illegally and forcibly. The encroachments are required to be removed and passages are to be restored to its original position, hence the suit. Suit was contested by appellant-defendants claiming that suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties; that answering defendant has not encroached upon any portion of the passage in fact Gram Panchayat has merged major portion of the street in its land and the same is required to be vacated and that plaintiffs have filed the suit by stating wrong facts and intends to encroach upon the suit property. The passage in Khasra No. 597 is being used by defendant No. 1 and the passages were carved out by deducting land out of the land of Ruris of the defendants and others and plaintiff has no concern with the passage. Defendant No. 1 has not raised the level of the passage. The earth was filled in the land owned by defendant No. 1 whereas defendants No. 2 and 3 contended that plaintiffs has encroached upon the land of Panchayat and has submitted the wrong site plan. Plaintiffs has no right to use the streets in question; defendants has every right to raise the level of street; plaintiffs has no connection with the same.

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

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to joint possession, as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.

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

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and have concealed the material facts from this court? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD.

7. Whether the suit is not within the period of limitation?

OPD.

8. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for mis- joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

9. Whether the plaintiffs have not paid the proper court fee? OPD.

10. Relief.”

4. Both the parties were granted opportunities to lead evidence.

5. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by recording findings that Gram Panchayat is necessary party and Gram Panchayat has not been joined in the suit so suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that demarcation was conducted only of the Street Nos. 588 and 597 and from the same it cannot be concluded that defendants have constructed a Khurli in street No. 588 and has encroached upon street No. 597.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree so passed respondent plaintiffs preferred appeal. The lear