Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Arora @ Vijay Kumar vs Sampuran Singh And Others on 12 January, 2026
RSA-2917-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
141 RSA-2917-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision :12.01.2026
VIJAY ARORA @ VIJAY KUMAR ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
SAMPURAN SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Chirag Hans, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
PARMOD GOYAL, J.
CM-10288-C-2025 This is an application for condonation of delay of 141 days in filing the present appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 141 days in filing the present appeal, is hereby condoned. Main Case
1. Appellant-defendant No. 1 is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.07.2024 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur, whereby the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff- respondent, directing the defendants to remove the flex board of the Pollution Check Center installed by them on the first floor on the southern side of the plaintiff's house, was decreed. The appellant-defendantNo.1 is further aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.01.2025 passed by the Court of District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the first appeal preferred by the defendant-
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2026 20:11:43 :::
RSA-2917-2025 (O&M) -2-
appellant was also dismissed.
2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking a direction to the defendants to remove the flex board of the Pollution Check Centre installed by them on the first floor on the southern side of the plaintiff's house. It was the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner in possession of house No. 80(P), Railway Road, near Pilot Chowk, Ferozepur Cantt., and has been residing in the said house for the last 45 years. It was further pleaded that all the defendants are running their business under the name and style of "Pollution Check Centre" on the southern side of the plaintiff's house. It was alleged that the kitchen of the plaintiff's house is situated on the southern side and has two windows meant for ventilation, and that the defendants had installed a flex board over the said windows. Due to the installation of the flex board, proper ventilation was obstructed; hence, removal of the same was sought by way of the suit.
3. The defendants contested the suit by raising several preliminary objections. It was asserted that the plaintiff is not the owner of the house and that his possession over the first floor is unauthorized. It was further contended that the defendants are residing on the ground floor of the house and that the condition of the house is dilapidated. Interference with the easementary rights of the plaintiff was denied.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No. 1 argued that the defendant-appellant is the owner of the suit property, which was purchased by his father in a public auction, and that the plaintiff is in unauthorized possession of the first floor. It was further submitted that the condition of the house is dilapidated and may collapse at any time; therefore, no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff-respondent to institute the suit. It was also contended that the suit is hopelessly time-barred, as the flex board had been in existence for the 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2026 20:11:44 ::: RSA-2917-2025 (O&M) -3- last 13 to 14 years prior to the filing of the suit, whereas the period of limitation for filing such a suit is only three years.
5. The possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the first floor of the house, which is the subject matter of the present case, is not at all disputed by the appellant-defendant No. 1. It is the stand of the appellant-defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff is in unauthorized possession of the said portion and, therefore, has no right to file a suit for mandatory injunction. The plaintiff, on the other hand, claimed that he is the owner in possession of the suit property for the last 45 years.
6. In the present case, the controversy pertains to a suit for mandatory injunction seeking removal of a flex board, which is alleged to be causing obstruction to the easementary rights vested in the plaintiff. The issue of ownership of the suit property was neither directly in issue nor could it have been adjudicated in the present proceedings.
7. The core question is whether a person, who is admittedly in possession, can be prevented from enjoying his easementary rights by placing a flex board on the windows of his kitchen. The plaintiff has not only produced sufficient material to establish his possession, but his possession was also duly admitted by the defendants, though claimed to be unauthorized. Once it is shown that the flex board was installed in such a manner as to block the windows of the plaintiff's kitchen, thereby interfering with his easementary rights, the Courts are duty-bound to grant the relief sought.
8. The contention of the appellant-defendant No. 1 that the suit is barred by limitation on the ground that it was not filed within three years from the installation of the flex board is also devoid of merit. There is no cogent evidence on record to establish that the flex board had been in existence for more than 13- 14 years, as alleged by the appellant, or that the suit was filed beyond the 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2026 20:11:44 ::: RSA-2917-2025 (O&M) -4- prescribed period of limitation. Moreover, the interference with easementary rights constitutes a continuing cause of action, as such obstruction accrues on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, the suit cannot be held to be time-barred.
9. Both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence on record and have rightly concluded that the defendants were interfering with the easementary rights of the plaintiff. The suit was rightly decreed and the appeal preferred by the defendants was rightly dismissed. No substantial question of law arises in present appeal. There is no merit in the present appeal.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
12.01.2026 (PARMOD GOYAL)
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2026 20:11:44 :::