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

CR-8379-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :-03.12.2025 Mohinder Singh and Others ....Petitioners VERSUS Nirmal Singh and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Akshay Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tushar Kush, Advocate and Mr. Amyia Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ravinder Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Garvit Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Ritender Rathee, for respondent No.1/caveator.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.05.2025, whereby the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division Ambala dismissed the application filed by the under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

Brief Facts

2. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction, alleging that the sale deed bearing No. 3448 dated 22.11.2023, executed by defendants No. 3 and 4 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 with respect to land measuring 12 kanals 19 marlas comprised in various Khewat/Khasra numbers situated in Village Mateheri Sekhon, Tehsil and District Ambala, along with the mutation sanctioned on its basis, is illegal, null, void and not binding upon them. It is pleaded that the entire land originally belonged to earlier owners, who had carved out different plots for raising shops and developing a commercial site along the main Ambala–Hissar Road. The plots were of different sizes, and at the time of carving out the colony, land in front of the plots/shops was left undisputedly for parking of vehicles of plot-holders as well as the general public visiting the commercial centre. The plaintiffs aver that they had purchased their respective plots/constructed shops from earlier owners through registered sale deeds executed approximately twelve years ago, at which time the price paid by them included the cost of the parking area also. The site plan forming part of their sale deeds clearly reflects a 100-foot-wide open parking area shown by letters ABCD, whereas the shops constructed by the plaintiffs are shown by letters CDEF.

3. It is further pleaded that ever since their purchase, the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the entire commercial centre, including the shops, plots, houses (where applicable), and the parking space shown in the plan, and have been using the same without any hindrance from anyone. The plaintiffs assert that defendants No.3 and 4 are neither owners nor were ever in possession of the parking area, and therefore had no right or authority to execute any sale deed in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. According to the plaintiffs, defendants No.3 and 4 had themselves purchased certain portions of the land long ago for their own use, but the parking space had always remained a common area belonging to the plot/shop owners, and had also been reflected as vacant land in the site plans attached with the plaintiffs’ own title documents. It is emphasised that the defendants No.1 and 2 have no right, title or interest in the commercial centre except for whatever independent land they may have purchased separately.

4. The plaintiffs further aver that in the last week of December 2023, defendants No.1 and 2, along with some companions, came to the site armed with weapons and attempted to forcibly take possession of the parking space in front of the shops. Due to timely intervention of the plaintiffs, the police and some respectable members of the village, the defendants failed in their attempt and were compelled to leave, though they openly threatened the plaintiffs that they would dispossess them whenever they found an opportunity. The plaintiffs then approached the defendants through village elders, whereupon defendants No. 1 and 2 disclosed that they had purchased the land from defendants No. 3 and 4 vide the impugned sale deed dated 22.11.2023. The plaintiffs informed them that defendants No. 3 and 4 were neither owners