RSA No. 2725 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2725 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.03.2011. Jagdish and another .......Appellants Vs. Rambir Lal and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the respondents. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction qua suit property marked by letters ABCD in the site plan, bounded as under:- North : House of Ram Devi defendants No. 3 to 5. South : House of Ram Singh East : Rasta-Aam West : House of Jagdish and Dalbir defendants No. 1 and 2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that the suit property had been inherited by the plaintiffs from their father. The plaintiffs had amongst themselves divided the suit property and had raised construction over the suit property. Defendants RSA No. 2725 of 2009 (O&M) -2- were threatening the plaintiffs that they would not allow them to construct the boundary wall AE. The matter came up before the police under Section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Defendants No. 3 to 5 filed a civil suit No. 70 of 1994/99 for possession of the suit property and the same was dismissed on 5.8.2002 by the trial court. The defendants were threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and hence suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants No.1 and 2, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that in fact defendants No. 1 and 2 were owners and in possession of the suit property marked by letters AEFD. The father of the plaintiffs had admitted the said fact in a previous suit titled as 'Karan Singh versus Jagdish Singh etc.' decided on 29.7.1991. The suit qua defendants No. 3 to 5 was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide order dated 25.5.2005. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of disputed property shown in red colour mentioned as A.B.C.D in the site plan annexed with the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the court? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file RSA No. 2725 of 2009 (O&M) -3- the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by their own act, conduct and omission? OPD 6. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 30.8.2008, Civil Judge (Junior Division) decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants No. 1 and 2 from obstructing construction of wall AE. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 27.3.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants No. 1 and 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiffs, in order to prove their case, had proved on record site plan (Ex. PA). Defendant No.2 Dalbir, while appearing in the witness box as DW-1 in his cross examination, admitted that the site plan (Ex.PA) was correct as per spot. In these circumstances, the courts below rightly held that the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction was liable to be decreed as the site plan, set up by plaintiffs, had been admitted by the defendant No.2 Dalbir in his cross examination. The defendants cannot interfere in the property belonging to the plaintiffs shown in Ex. PA. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. RSA No. 2725 of 2009 (O&M) -4- Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 25, 2011 Gurpreet