RSA No. 1922 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1922 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 11 , 2010 Bal Krishan ...... Appellant Versus Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.M.S.Sachdev, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing his Khokha or dispossessing him from the site measuring 2 meters x 3 meters on the ground that he was a tenant. Both the courts after going through the evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant had been granted Tehbazari rights and those also ceased w.e.f. 1995 and that thereafter the appellant became encroacher on municipal property and hence declined him the injunction. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the appellate court could summarily dismiss the RSA No. 1922 of 2009(O&M) 2 appeal without discussing the issue and without discussing the evidence in summary manner? ii)Whether the law requires into deciding the each an every issue after discussing the same and after rendering the pleadings? iii)Whether appellate court can reject all the rules which has been quoted without discussing them and simply say in word that these are not applicable when requires the rulings and distinguish them after rendering the facts of each ruling and facts involved in the present case? iv)Whether the learned courts below are bound to discuss the evidence of both the parties while deciding the issue? v) Whether judgment of both the courts below stands judicious scrutiny of their proper judgment in laws in view of the provisions contained in Order 20 of CPC? vi)Whether the learned courts have dealt with the matter in judicial mind and whether the issues should be decided? vii)Whether the appellant can be relieved on account of basic principles of law by both the courts below? viii)Whether the appellant was in possession of the suit property? ix)Whether the appellant is entitled for the relief claimed? It would be seen that questions No. (i) to (iv) and (vi) are overlapping questions with regard to the argument that while deciding the appeal the learned Lower Appellate Court should have given a finding on each issue. In my opinion in the present case the seminal fact was whether the appellant was a tenant or was enjoying the usufruct on the basis of Tehbazari. Once this seminal issue was decided against the appellant even if no finding was given on the peripheral issues it cannot be said that the judgment is liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Questions no. (v) and (vii) are also overlapping questions. Learned counsel has not been able to show me how the provisions of Order 20 CPC have been RSA No. 1922 of 2009(O&M) 3 flouted. Questions No. (viii) and (ix) are general questions on which no answer is required to be given. Learned counsel has relied upon Rame Gowda (D) by LRs v . M. Vasradamma Naidu (D) by LRs and another reported as 2004(4) Indian Civil Cases 86, Krishan Ram Mahale dead by his LRs v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao reported as AIR 1989 SC 2097, M. Rajkumar and others v. The Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad and others reported as AIR 1991 Andhra Pradesh 143 and Chand Parkash and another v. The State of Punjab and another reported as 1976 Revenue Law Reporter 97. All these judgments relate to the circumstance where injunction can be issued even to a trespasser. It must be noticed, however, that in none of these cases was a person held to have encroached on a public road. Consequently none of these judgments are applicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 11 , 2010 sunita