RSA No. 2308 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2308 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.5.2011. Shivrose Singh and another .......Appellants Vs. Municipal Council and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.P.S.Mattewal, Advocate for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was owner of Khasra No. 105//14 (2-7), 17(3-8) situated in village Sanaur. The defendant was threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the site plan, attached by the plaintiff with the plaint, was not correct. The plaintiff in fact had encroached upon abadi land and was trying to encroach upon the remaining portion of the public property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP RSA No. 2308 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPD 3. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 8.12.2010 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant Municipal Committee preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 21.3.2011. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the legal heirs of the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, plaintiff is owner in possession of Khasra No. 105//14 (2-7), 17(3-8). Plaintiff in order to prove his case, proved on record site plan. The defendant, on the other hand, examined Paramjit Jindal as DW-2 who had demarcated the suit land and the said witness proved his report Ex. D-2. As per the said report, the plaintiff had encroached about 1 Kanal 7 Marlas of land out of the Abadi Deh. Plaintiff Gurdial Singh had remained present during the demarcation proceedings. In these circumstances, the learned first appellate court rightly held that the plaintiff was not entitled for relief of injunction as he had encroached upon the Abadi Deh land and, thus, had not come to the court with clean hands. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 24, 2011 Gurpreet