IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3896 of 2009 Date of Decision : 29.4.2010 Nirmal Singh Advocate ....Appellant Versus Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Amardeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the respondent No.1-Jalandhar Improvement Trust to cancel the allotment of Plot No.297 in favour of respondent No.2 in a development scheme of respondent No.1 in the year 1973. The main grievance of the appellant was that the plot upon which respondent No.2 has raised construction was reserved for widows and respondent No.2 obtained the same by furnishing a false affidavit. The respondent No.1 pleaded that the plot in question was allotted to one Naseeb Kaur, a war widow, but she refused this allotment and thereafter the plot was allotted to respondent No.2 by virtue of her being a government employee. She had submitted an affidavit stating that she was not owing any plot anywhere in Punjab or Chandigarh and justified the allotment of this plot. R.S.A.No.3896 of 2009 -2- Respondent No.2 submitted that after the death of her father, she along with her sisters, brothers and mother succeeded to the property and justified the allotment to say that it was in accordance with rules. The parties went to trial on the following issues. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable?OPD 3. Whether no cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the suit is not within limitation?OPD 6. Relief. Both the Courts dismissed the suit by observing that the suit was filed in the year 1999 whereas the allotment was made in 1973. Apart from this the other reason for dismissing the suit of the appellant was that the appellant could have sued for personal rights but could not have sued any member of the public without complying with the provisions of Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and erroneous and are liable to be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the findings R.S.A.No.3896 of 2009 -3- recorded by the Courts below. Concededly the plot in question was allotted to respondent No.2 in the year 1973 and such issue regarding improper allotment could have been raised within a reasonable time. The suit was filed in 1999 which is at a much belated stage. A person whose rights apparently had not been affected could not have raised this plea against respondent No.2 at such a stage and therefore this Court does not find any merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. 29.4.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss