RSA No.1464 of 2010 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.1464 of 2010 (O&M)

Decided on: 25.10.2017

Suresh Kumar and others

..........Appellants

versus

Ram Kishan and another

.........Respondents

Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT

Present:

Mr. R.S. Dadwal, Advocate for

Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. VS Kaajla, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

****

Rajbir Sehrawat, J.(Oral)

This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and

decree passed by the lower Appellate Court; whereby the decree passed by

the trial Court in their favour was reversed and their suit was ordered to be

dismissed.

For convenience, the parties would be referred herein as the

plaintiff and the defendants as they are described in the original suit.

The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for

injunction restraining the defendants from dismantling the common stairs

between the shops of the plaintiffs and the defendants and further directing

Sahil Soni

2017.11.06 11:56

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA No.1464 of 2010 (O&M)

-2-

him to maintain the status quo regarding stairs. Still further, the mandatory

injunction was prayed for directing the defendant to remove the

constructions raised on the common stairs.

The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are the

owner in possession of shop Nos.38, 39, 40 and 42 situated in Karan Market,

Karnal. Defendants are owners in the possession of the shop No.41 in Karan

Market, Karnal, fully described the suit plaint.

It was further averred that the shop Nos.36 to 45 are situated in

one line and are in the southern side of the public street and the shops were

allotted through auctioned by the Improvement Trust, Karnal in the year of

1971-72. It was further averred that as per the site plan of the Improvement

Trust, Karnal; in relation to Karan Market, the stairscase in question was

shown in red colour, to be as common staircase for the use of the plaintiffs,

defendants and other co-shop owners of shop Nos. 36 to 45 and none of the

shop owner was given exclusive rights over the stairs.

It was further averred that the defendant has illegally raised

construction/Mumty over the stairs in question; in spite of the request and

representation of plaintiffs and other shopkeepers; with intention to grab the

staircase and to restrain the other shop owners from using the same.

It was still further pleaded that defendant were bent upon

annexing the stairs in question, forcibly and illegally, into the shop No.41,

which was purchased by them from the Improvement Trust. It was claimed

that the defendants have got no right, title or interest to dismantle, demolish

or alter the structure of staircase.

On notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement

taking the preliminary objections that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to

Sahil Soni

2017.11.06 11:56

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA No.1464 of 2010 (O&M)

-3-

file and maintain the present suit. On merits, it was claimed that the site plan

and the boundaries mentioned by the plaintiffs are totally incorrect.

It was further pleaded that the staircase in question exists in the

shop No.41; being exclusively owned by the defendants. The other pleadings

of the plaintiffs were also denied.

It was further claimed in the written statement that, previously,

the shops were constructed and allotted by Improvement Trust. But open

verandah was left uncovered in front of the shops. But lateron the competent

authorities gave sanction to the respective shopkeepers/owners to cover that

verandah which was situated in front of their respective shops, after making

payment to the Improvement Trust for the cost of land of verandah.

It was further averred that in pursuance to this policy of the

Improvement Trust; most of the shopkeepers covered the said verandah by

purchasing the same from the Improve