RSA No.345 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.345 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.11.2009 Sohan Lal and others .....Appellants Vs. Kishore Kumar and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Ms. Ravinder Kaur Manise, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.1. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The appellants challenge judgements and decrees dated 22.1.2007 and 20.11.2007, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur and the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc)- cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, decreeing the suit filed by respondent no.1 and dismissing their appeal. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant/appellants from blocking the user of his shop shown by the letters GHDI by placing their counters, tables and sewing machines in the street denoted by the letters ABCIDEF. It is pleaded that both parties are tenants of Ashwani Kumar-landlord, who left the passage ABCIDEF for common use. The appellants have, however, placed their counters, tables and sewing machines, thereby obstructing the RSA No.345 of 2009 2 passage. In response, the appellants pleaded that as the passage belongs to the landlord and as it is not a public street, respondent no.1 has no right to claim any injunction. It was further pleaded that the appellants have been in possession for the last 25 years and in case they are not allowed to place their counters, tables and sewing machines etc., outside the shop, it would seriously affect their business. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court decreed the suit by holding that the appellants can not be allowed to place tables, counters and sewing machines etc. in the common passage. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants filed an application for additional evidence, so as to prove that the passage is not a public street. The application was dismissed by holding that as admittedly, the passage is a private street, no useful purpose would be served by summoning the record of the Municipal Committee. Vide judgement and decree dated 20.11.2007, the learned Additional Judge (Adhoc)-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Counsel for the appellants submits, by reference to the site plan Ex.P-1, that the appellants are in occupation of the shop behind respondent no.1's shop and, therefore, the counters, tables etc. do not affect his business in any manner. It is further argued that the street belongs to the landlord and, therefore, respondent no.1 has no locus-standi to file the suit, particularly when other shopkeepers have not raised any objection. It is RSA No.345 of 2009 3 argued that an injunction could have been granted only if the passage was a public street and, therefore, the courts below have committed an error in decreeing the suit filed by respondent no.1 and dismissing their appeal. Counsel for respondent no.1 submits that as admittedly the passage has been carved out for common use, the appellants cannot be allowed to obstruct the passage. As the findings recorded by the courts below do not raise any question of law, the appeal should be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgements and decrees and find no reason to hold that the findings recorded by the courts below are erroneous or give rise to any substantial question of law. Admittedly, the passage between the shops is owned by the landlord. The passage has been left for use by the shopkeepers and the customers who visit the shops. The appellants, therefore, have no right to place counters, tables and sewing machines in the passage. The fact that the appellants shop is behind the shop of respondent no.1 is irrelevant, as the dispute relates to encroachment of a path left for common use. The argument that as the path is not a public street, the respondents have no locus-standi to file a suit is entirely irrelevant, as the question is one of encroachment on a path reserved for common use . As no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are affirmed and the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 12.11.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE RSA No.345 of 2009 4