Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh vs Karamjit Kaur & Anr on 13 November, 2014
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
RSA No. 5302 of 2014 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
RSA No. 5302 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.11.2014
Harjinder Singh ........ Appellant
Versus
Karamjit Kaur and another .......Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
-.-
Present: Mr. H S Batth, Advocate
for the appellant
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
Rekha Mittal, J.
The present regular second appeal has been directed against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court and counter claim preferred by Karamjit Kaur, respondent/defendant was allowed and the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed in appeal.
The sole submission made by counsel for the appellant is that in case the judgments passed by the Courts below allowing counter claim filed by the respondent/defendant are allowed to sustain, it would result in MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2014.11.21 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No. 5302 of 2014 (O&M) 2 demolition of residential house of the appellant as he has raised construction of his house in such a manner that the construction over the roof of street in question and other portion cannot be separated without causing damage to main building. In addition, it is submitted that no objection was raised by respondent No. 1 at the time when the appellant raised construction over the street in question and area indisputably owned by him.
I have heard counsel for the appellant and find no reason to intervene.
Perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts below makes it evident that the counter claimant neither prayed for issuance of mandatory injunction for demolition of construction raised by the appellant/plaintiff nor any such relief has been allowed by the Courts. It appears that the present appeal has been preferred either ignorantly or otherwise without clearly and properly appreciating the import and intent of the findings recorded by the Courts while allowing the counter claim filed by the contesting party. The trial Court framed issued No. 2 in regard to counter claim and the same reads as follows:
2. Whether the defendant is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction by way of counter claim?OPD The averments set up in the counter claim and prayer made therein makes it apparent that plea of the defendant/counter claimant is that the plaintiff has raised roof over the street illegally in June 2009 and he is threatening to raise further construction over the roof in the street in dispute and also threatening to create hindrance in the free use of the street by the counter claimant. No such prayer was made by defendant No. 1 that an injunction in the form of mandate may be issued, directing the plaintiff to MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2014.11.21 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No. 5302 of 2014 (O&M) 3 remove the roof raised over the street. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by the appellant is misconceived and merits outright rejection.
No other point has been urged.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
(Rekha Mittal) Judge 13.11.2014 mohan MOHAN LAL BIMBRA 2014.11.21 09:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh