R.S.A No. 1852 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 12691 of 2011 in R.S.A No. 1852 of 2011 Date of decision:- 09.11.2011 Ved Prakash and another ...Appellants Versus Amrik Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for the applicants-appellants. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) C.M. No. 12691 of 2011 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for preponement of the date of hearing. Heard. In view of the averments made in the application , C.M. is allowed as prayed for and the matter is taken up on board today itself. R.S.A No. 1852 of 2011 Challenge is to the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent No. 1 for mandatory injunction. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is retired Subedar from Indian Army and is presently residing at Village Mahuna Bodla. He filed a suit for issuance of mandate against the defendants to remove the illegal obstruction/encroachment/hindrance created in the passage coloured red in the attached site plan and also for the issuance of direction to the R.S.A No. 1852 of 2011 (O&M) -2- defendants to shift the wal. On 27.02.2004, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction prayed for? OPP 2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 5. Relief. After going through the evidence led by the plaintiff, the trial Court has returned a finding on issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of report of the local commissioner (Ex-P3). As per this report, there was 3 karam wide passage which was running for the last 15-20 years, which has been closed by Ved Prakash and Dayal Singh by raising wall and they are in illegal possession, which has been shown in yellow colour in the site plan EX.P4. This fact was proved by the photograph brought on the file by the plaintiff showing that the defendants had raised a wall shown at Mark DEFG which included the site of the passage in their own houses illegally. The suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction was decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. In appeal filed by the defendants, the finding of the trial Court has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication before this Court in view of the finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below. Accordingly, R.S.A is dismissed. November 09, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE