R.S.A.No. 397 of 2009 {1}
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
R.S.A.No. 397 of 2009
Date of Decision:July 24, 2009
Surjit Singh and others
---Appellants
versus
Sidhu Bus Service ltd.and another
---Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
***
Present: Mr. R.K.Sharma,Advocate,
for the appellants
***
SABINA, J.
Plaintiffs had filed a suit for mandatory injunction and
permanent injunction. Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Bathinda
vide judgment and decree dated 2.2.2008 dismissed the suit of the
plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the
same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide judgment
and decree dated 30.9.2008. Hence, the present appeal.
The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional
District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:-
“Plaintiffs claim themselves to be the owners of three
wheelers; plaintiff No. 1 obtained a valid permit from the
R.S.A.No. 397 of 2009 {2}
Regional Transport Authority and is running three wheeler.
Plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are running three wheelers after
purchasing valid permits from one Gurmail Singh and
Mohinder Singh, respectively, whereas plaintiff No. 4 claims
that route permit was allocated to him. Defendant No. 1 runs
his buses from Bathinda to village Gilla via Kachi Bhucho,
Kahan Singh Wala, Chak Fateh Singh Wala, Chak Ram Singh
Wala and Chak Bakhtu, whereas defendant No., 2 dhas the
route permit from Bathinda to village Gill via same route. It is
further pleaded that the defendants are taking undue benefit of
wor “Kahan Singh Wala” which has been mentioned in the
permits, whereas words ‘Kahan Singh Wala’ have been written
on the building of State Bank of India, which is situated in the
middle of Bhucho Mandi. Plaintiffs requested defendants to
run their buses according to the route permits, but they did not
accede to the requests of the plaintiffs, so they filed the instant
suit.
Defendants appeared and filed written statement
taking legal objections to the effect that the plaintiffs have no
locus standi or cause of action to file the present suit; that the
suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and that the plaintiffs
have not come to the court with clean hands. Stand taken by
defendants is that plaintiffs, themselves are violating the terms,
conditions and destinations of their route permits and playing
their three wheelers beyond limits of route permits allocated to
them. Route permits allotted to them are as contract carriages
R.S.A.No. 397 of 2009 {3}
and they are to pick the passengers from one place to another
and not to stop in between. The plaintiffs have no concern with
village Kahan Singh Wala; the plaintiffs have no route permit
to touch village Kahan Singh Wala, which is situated on
western side of Bhucho Mandi. It is further averred that
plaintiffs are violating the Rules because they have created
extra sitting arrangement on both the sides of their vehicles.
Please of the defendants is that they are plying their mini buses
as per the permissible route permits issued by Regional
Transport Authority, Ferozepur. Village Kahan Singh Wala is
adjoining village Bhucho Mandi and State Bank of Patiala is
constructed within the revenue limits of village Kahan Singh
Wala and the road leading to Balianwali passes through
Bhucho Mandi. Other averments of the plaint are denied and
prayer is made for dismissal of the suit with costs.”
On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following
issues:-
“(1)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of mandatory
injunction as prayed for? OPP
(2)Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the
present suit? OPD
(3)Whether no cause of action has been accrued to file the
present suit? OPD
(4)Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present
form? OPD
R.S.A.No. 397 of 2009 {4}(5)Relief.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellants I am of the
opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Plaintiffs had failed to prove on record the route permits, if any,
issued to them by the Transport Authority. It has been observed by the
learned Additional District Judge in its judgment that appellant No. 1 had
failed to prove his route permit. Neither the original nor its copy has been
exhibited on the file. Appellants No. 2 and 3 had also not obtained any
permission from the Transport Authority directly but had allegedly
purchased the same from Gurmail Singh and Mohinder Singh respectively.
However, they had failed to establish on record that the said route permits
have been transferred in their name. Similarly, appellant No. 4 had also
failed to prove on record that any permit was issued in his favour. He
had also not appeared in the court to face cross examination.
Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to controvert the
said factual position. Hence, the courts below have rightly held that the
plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit.
No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
July 24, 2009
PARAMJIT