IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.05.2026 Suresh Kumar …Appellant Versus District Industrial Centre and Another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate, for the appellant.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (Oral)

This is plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2022, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

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

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiff over an iron Kiosk, installed on the land (fully described in the plaint) situated at Malwal Road, Industrial Area, Ferozepur City (hereinafter referred to as `the suit land’). It was further prayed that till the title over the suit land was proved between the defendants, defendant No.1 be restrained from removing the said Kiosk, forcibly and illegally, except in due course of law.

3.1 It was claimed that the plaintiff had applied for installation of the said Kiosk over the suit land belonging to defendant No.2 and that permission in this regard was granted by defendant No.2. After installation of the said Kiosk, the plaintiff had been depositing rent @ Rs.500/- per month with defendant No.2 and receipts in this regard were also issued by the said defendant. The plaintiff had also obtained an electric connection for the said Kiosk from the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (PSPCL). It was further the case of the plaintiff that one Sukhchain Singh, in connivance with defendant No.2, tried to disturb the possession of the plaintiff and even the officials of defendant No.2 had also tried to demolish the aforesaid Kiosk.

3.2 It was further claimed by the plaintiff that he had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur on 26.03.2018, but an appeal against the said decision was pending. It was further averred that on 16.08.2018, defendant No.1 had issued a notice calling upon the plaintiff to remove the said Kiosk on the ground that the same had been installed on the suit property owned by defendant No.1. The plaintiff filed reply to the said notice. It was further claimed that both defendants were claiming ownership over the suit land.

4. The defendants contested the suit. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, the plaintiff having concealed material facts from the Court and non issuance of a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, were taken. The suit was also termed to be barred by the principle of resjudicata.

4.1 On merits, it was asserted that the plaintiff had encroached upon the Government land belonging to defendant No.1 and when defendant No.1 had issued notice dated 16.08.2018 to the plaintiff to vacate the said land, he had instituted the instant suit.

4.2 In the written statement filed by defendant No.2, it was asserted that a previous suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court and no stay was granted by the Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the plaintiff. It was further asserted that as the claim of the plaintiff regarding ownership in respect of the suit land over which the Kiosk was constructed, was declined by the trial Court, he had no right to dispute the title of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit land. It was further the case of defendant No.2 that the plaintiff was obstructing free flow of traffic in front of the bus-

stand by encroaching upon the public property.

4.3 The plaintiff filed replication controverting t