R.S.A. No. 842 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 842 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.2.2009 Shakuntla Devi .......... Appellant Versus Market Committee, Barwala ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. A.K. Goel, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 8.4.2008 and 4.10.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction stands dismissed. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that the defendant be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the shop No. 99 situated at New Mandi Barwala, Tehsil and District, Hisar by demolishing two gates, projection, window and patnalas existing/constructed on the southern wall of the shop in dispute by the plaintiff. It is the case set up by the plaintiff that respondent defendants i.e. the owner of the plot on the southern side issued a notice dated 12.9.2000 calling upon the plaintiff appellant to close the gates, projection, R.S.A. No. 842 of 2009 2 window and patnalas by claiming the plot as private property. The Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff appellant has no right to open the gate , projection, window and patnalas on southern wall being private property. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in this case the substantial question of law for consideration is : “Whether the learned Courts below failed to consider the documentary evidence brought on record by way of Ex. P-6, P-8 & Ex. P-9 and, thus, the finding are perverse ? In support of the substantial question of law framed the learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the plot on the southern side of the wall belongs to defendant-respondent but an application for purchase already stands made which stands forwarded for consideration by higher authorities, therefore, the defendants should wait for the final decision. However, this plea of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be sustained admittedly as on date the plot in dispute belongs to the defendant and the plaintiff has absolutely no right to open gates, projection, window and patnalas in the private property. The learned Courts below observed that the decision in this case is not to affect the decision to be taken on the application made by the plaintiff appellant. There is no error in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below in dismissing the suit in spite of pendency of the R.S.A. No. 842 of 2009 3 application of the plaintiff respondent. Mere filing of application for purchase can not give a right to interfere in private property. No merit. Dismissed. 20.2.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE