CR 3840/2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR 3840/2011(O&M) Date of decision: 26.07.2011 Sewa Pati ....................Petitioner v. Krishan Kumar .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Harish Nain,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Petitioner/plaintiff-Sewa Pati filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent/defendant-Krishan Kumar with the averments that she was owner in possession of a shop situated in Babu Ram Market, near New Bus Stand Narwana. The said shop was initially sold by respondent/defendant-Krishan Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 26.11.1990 in favour of Kishan Lal and others, who subsequently vide registered sale deed dated 2.7.2004 sold the said shop in favour of Banwari Lal, father-in-law of the plaintiff/petitioner. Said Banwari Lal, executed a registered Will dated 13.5.2005 in favour of his daughter-in- law/Sewa Pati (plantiff/petitioner). It was alleged by the plaintiff/petitioner that rights concerning use of rasta situated on the north side of the shop in question vested in the original purchaser i.e. CR 3840/2011(O&M) 2 Kishan Lal and others who had further transferred such rights in favour of Banwari Lal, predecessor-in-interest of the planitiff/petitioner. Further vide registered Will dated 13.5.2005 the rights concerning use of rasta situated on the north side of the shop came to vest in the petitioner/plantiff-Sewa Pati. It was further alleged by her that defendant-Krishan Kumar was bent upon to forcibly close the rasta in dispute and also to make construction over green belt adjacent to the said rasta. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for ad interim injunction. Respondent/defendant filed reply to the said application. After hearing both sides, the learned trial court vide order dated 1.9.2010 restrained the defendant/respondent from closing rasta in dispute and raising construction on the disputed rasta/greent belt. Aggrieved against the same, respondent/defendant filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned Addl.Distt.Judge, Jind vide impugned order dated 9.3.2011 modifying the stay granted by the trial court and held that appellant/defendant (respondent herein) has every right to raise construction over the green belt. Aggrieved against the same, plaintiff/ petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. While passing the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge has found that appellant/defendant was owner of the entire property including the shop in possession of the plaintiff. He had sold this shop to Kishori Lal etc., who sold the same to father-in-law of CR 3840/2011(O&M) 3 the plaintiff, who further bequeathed the same to plaintiff vide registered Will. It was further found that as regards use of rasta by the plaintiff on the north side of the shop the same was not in dispute and as such she could use the same. As regards construction over the green belt after the rasta/passage, it was found by the learned Additional District Judge that in the sale deed in favour of the father-in-law of the plaintiff, there was no mention about any such green belt and as such it could not be said that she could use the green belt adjacent to the rasta, which was prima facie, found to be property of the defendant/respondent. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. Nothing stated above,shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 26.07.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge