IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.11.2025 Gurbinder Kaur ...Pe oner Versus Nirmal Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K. Bokolia, Advocate for the pe oner.

Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate for the respondents-caveator.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The pe oner, one of the defendants in Civil Suit No. CS-872-

2024 tled Nirmal Singh v. Pritam Singh and others, pending before Ld. Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Faridkot, challenges the appellate order dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) direc ng the par es to maintain status quo regarding a four-foot-wide passage leading to the plain ff’s house in Faridkot.

2. The suit had been filed by Nirmal Singh seeking decree of permanent injunc on to protect the said passage, alleged to have been le? open by the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants, when transferring property to him. Ini ally, the trial court granted an interim order of status quo on 30 July 2025 but vacated it a month later, no ng that the defendants had already demolished the plain ff’s gate, encroached on the strip, and merged it with their plot. The court also observed that since the plain ff had begun using a rear entry, he appeared to have an alterna ve access route and could not claim an easementary right.

3. On appeal, however, the First Appellate Court reconsidered the material on record and found indica ons that the passage in fact existed. It referred to two compromises dated 17 and 22 October 2024, both signed by the defendants, in which the existence of the passage had been expressly acknowledged. It further noted a registered transfer deed dated 9 January 2020 (registered 10 January 2020) executed by Pritam Singh, in favour of one of the defendants Gurwinder Kaur, which also men oned a four-foot-wide passage on the western side. Trea ng these documents as strong prima facie proof, the appellate court ordered that the par es maintain status quo un l the suit’s final disposal.

4. Assailing that order, Ld. Counsel for the pe oner argued that the trial court’s decision to vacate the injunc on was reasoned and should not have been disturbed.

5. This Court, however, finds no merit in the conten on. The dispute involves an access passage, an immovable feature, altera on of which could cause irreversible harm. The appellate court correctly applied the seDled tests for interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, as the plain ff showed a prima facie case through documentary admissions; the balance of convenience favoured preserving the strip from further construc on; and denial of relief would cause irreparable injury, since the right of way, once blocked, cannot be adequately compensated by money.

6. It is also well-seDled that a person who has encroached upon the disputed property cannot seek equity from his own wrongful act, and the mere existence of an alterna ve path does not by itself ex nguish a reserved or recorded passage. The appellate court’s order is cau ous, as it merely preserves the exis ng state of affairs without prejudging the merits. The discre on has been exercised judicially, on relevant material, and in conformity with legal principles.

7. Accordingly, no illegality, material irregularity, or perversity is found in the impugned order. The pe on is dismissed being devoid of merit, with the observa on that all findings herein are purely prima facie, confined to the ques on of interim relief.

12.11.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)

JUDGE Yogesh