CIVIL REVISION NO.3984 OF 2008 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: JULY 29, 2008
Sita Ram
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Ram Partap and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The prayer of the petitioner for grant of temporary
injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC stands dismissed by
Civil Judge as well as the lower Appellate Court. He, as such, has
filed this revision petition.
The petitioner is a tenant in the land measuring 18 bighas
16 biswas detailed in the head note of the plaint. He claims that the
petitioner is using a private passage as ingress and egress to the
said fields from Rewari road. The grievance is that the respondents
are trying to raise construction over the area used as passage, which
CIVIL REVISION NO.3984 OF 2008 :{ 2 }:
is being used by the petitioner for a long time.
On a notice issued to the respondents, they appeared
and disclosed that a land measuring 0-3 biswas was purchased by
them through a registered sale deed dated 11.9.2000 and, thus, they
are carrying out construction over the property and as such, the
petitioner would have no concern with the same.
Counsel for the petitioner would submit that by carrying
out construction, the respondents are blocking the only passage that
is available to the petitioner for his land which he has taken on lease
from the Municipal Committee. On the basis of pleadings and the
submissions made before the Court, it was found that the Rasta,
which is being claimed by the respondents as their property, is
situated in Khasra No.2128 of which the petitioner is neither the
owner nor in possession. The petitioner has also not challenged the
sale deed in favour of the respondents in any manner. The
dimension of the property has been clearly mentioned in the sale
deed. It is in this factual background that the Court has noticed that
there is no material on the file to prove the contention of the
petitioner that he is using this passage from 1982. It is further noticed
that the respondents had shown prima-facie that they are owners in
possession of the property in dispute on the basis of a sale deed
dated 11.9.2000. It appears that even a Local Commissioner was
appointed who inspected the site on 7.12.2000. Some construction
material was found lying on the land as was observed by the Local
Commissioner. The petitioner had made an attempt to rely upon
some demarcation report, which is dated 9.3.2008, which was found
CIVIL REVISION NO.3984 OF 2008 :{ 3 }:
to have been obtained during the pendency of the appeal but in the
absence of the respondents. This report was not rightly relied upon
by the Appellate Court. The Court had accordingly found that the
petitioner failed to show that property in dispute is a passage or that
the same is being used by him as ingress or egress to the suit land.
Counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the evidence given by
the representative of the Municipal Committee to show that the land
in dispute was being used as a passage. All these aspects and the
material placed on record were adequately considered by the courts
below and appreciation of the evidence at the stage of revision would
not be called for to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact recorded
by both the Courts in regard to the prima-facie proof of the
respondents being owners of the land in dispute on the basis of a
sale deed. The prayer of the petitioner, as such, was declined in a
just and proper manner and would not call for any interference.
The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
July 29, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE