IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 537 of 2010 Date of Decision: 04.03.2011 Barlaki Ram ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Aman Dhir, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. J.S.Puri, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjay Nagpal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) The present appellant and one Sarwan Sarangal had filed the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar to remove the encroachments made by the respondent No.3 (Kamal Dass) on a public street. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding that the petitioners had already filed a civil suit against the respondents as disputed questions of fact are involved it would be appropriate for the writ petitioners to continue with the civil suit instead of seeking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been filed by the second petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 1184 of 2010 i.e. Barlaki Ram. It is contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge with regard to the civil suit is incorrect inasmuch as the appellant had not filed any civil suit. That apart, it is contended that LPA No. 537 of 2010 [2] the cause of action in the suit and the writ petition are different inasmuch as in the suit filed an injunction was prayed for restraining the defendants from raising construction whereas in the writ petition the relief sought is against the Municipal Corporation for removal of the alleged encroachments. Both the contentions advanced are fallacious. While the appellant Barlaki Ram may not have been the plaintiff in the civil suit filed he was a co-petitioner with Sarwan Sarangal in the writ petition. The aforesaid person is the plaintiff in the civil suit as is evident from the plaint (Annexure P-5). A perusal of the said plaint also discloses that it is the contention of the plaintiff in the civil suit that the respondent No.3 (Kamal Dass) had encroached upon a public street and was planning to raise construction over it. The question of encroachment, therefore, is incidental to the issue of injunction prayed for in the suit and it is the said question of encroachment which has to be determined in the first instance. In the aforesaid circumstances if the appellant has been relegated to the remedy of the civil suit we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge, particularly, when it would be always open for the appellant to seek seek impleadment in the suit proceeding. The appeal, therefore, is not being entertained any further. It is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 04.03.2011 'ravinder'