CR 3840/2011(O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR 3840/2011(O&M)

Date of decision: 26.07.2011

Sewa Pati

....................Petitioner

v.

Krishan Kumar

.....................Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh

Present: Mr.Harish Nain,Advocate for the petitioner.

Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral)

Petitioner/plaintiff-Sewa Pati filed a suit for permanent

injunction against respondent/defendant-Krishan Kumar with the

averments that she was owner in possession of a shop situated in Babu

Ram Market, near New Bus Stand Narwana. The said shop was initially

sold by respondent/defendant-Krishan Kumar vide registered sale deed

dated 26.11.1990 in favour of Kishan Lal and others, who subsequently

vide registered sale deed dated 2.7.2004 sold the said shop in favour of

Banwari Lal, father-in-law of the plaintiff/petitioner. Said Banwari Lal,

executed a registered Will dated 13.5.2005 in favour of his daughter-in-

law/Sewa Pati (plantiff/petitioner). It was alleged by the

plaintiff/petitioner that rights concerning use of rasta situated on the

north side of the shop in question vested in the original purchaser i.e.

CR 3840/2011(O&M) 2

Kishan Lal and others who had further transferred such rights in favour

of Banwari Lal, predecessor-in-interest of the planitiff/petitioner.

Further vide registered Will dated 13.5.2005 the rights concerning use

of rasta situated on the north side of the shop came to vest in the

petitioner/plantiff-Sewa Pati. It was further alleged by her that

defendant-Krishan Kumar was bent upon to forcibly close the rasta in

dispute and also to make construction over green belt adjacent to the

said rasta. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff/petitioner filed an application

under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for ad interim injunction.

Respondent/defendant filed reply to the said application. After hearing

both sides, the learned trial court vide order dated 1.9.2010 restrained

the defendant/respondent from closing rasta in dispute and raising

construction on the disputed rasta/greent belt. Aggrieved against the

same, respondent/defendant filed an appeal which was allowed by the

learned Addl.Distt.Judge, Jind vide impugned order dated 9.3.2011

modifying the stay granted by the trial court and held that

appellant/defendant (respondent herein) has every right to raise

construction over the green belt. Aggrieved against the same, plaintiff/

petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

While passing the impugned order, the learned Additional

District Judge has found that appellant/defendant was owner of the

entire property including the shop in possession of the plaintiff. He had

sold this shop to Kishori Lal etc., who sold the same to father-in-law of

CR 3840/2011(O&M) 3

the plaintiff, who further bequeathed the same to plaintiff vide

registered Will. It was further found that as regards use of rasta by the

plaintiff on the north side of the shop the same was not in dispute and

as such she could use the same. As regards construction over the green

belt after the rasta/passage, it was found by the learned Additional

District Judge that in the sale deed in favour of the father-in-law of the

plaintiff, there was no mention about any such green belt and as such it

could not be said that she could use the green belt adjacent to the rasta,

which was prima facie, found to be property of the

defendant/respondent.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or

irregularity in the impugned order, warranting interference by this

Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution.

Dismissed.

Nothing stated above,shall be taken as an expression