RSA No.2656 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2656 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.01.2009 Karta & Anr. ..Appellants Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Madan Gupta, Sr.DAG, Haryana. Mr.Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.2. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide which suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants was ordered to be dismissed by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. The plaintiff/appellants have raised the following substantial RSA No.2656 of 2008 2 questions of law in this appeal for consideration by this court:- 1. Whether the suit for permanent injunction is competent in civil court when the plaintiffs have based their claim on the basis of possession? 2. Whether the learned trial court was justified in holding that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act? 3. Whether the judgment and decree Ex.P.67 and P.68 having attained finality could be ignored, and held to be void, without jurisdiction? Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned lower appellate court was not justified in reversing the findings of the learned trial court by holding the decree to be without jurisdiction in view of section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (for short the Act) as the suit of the plaintiffs was merely for injunction and not for declaration to attract bar under section 13 of the Act. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of previous judgment and decree having attained finality it was not open to the court to sit in appeal in subsequent suit and declare the same to be without jurisdiction. However, on consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. RSA No.2656 of 2008 3 The plaintiffs had claimed injunction on the basis of judgment and decree vide which the were declared to be owners in possession of the suit property. It cannot be disputed that the decree of the civil court declaring the plaintiffs to be owners in possession of the property in dispute recorded as shamlat land was without jurisdiction in view of the bar contained in section 13 of the Act. The decree being without jurisdiction did not confer any title on the plaintiff/appellants. The learned lower appellate court was, therefore, justified in holding that the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1996 did not confer any title on the plaintiff/appellants. The learned lower appellate court also held that the appellants were not entitled to injunction as the plaintiffs did not come to the court with clean hands, by concealing the factum of proceedings under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. Party coming to the court by concealing material facts is not entitled injunction, therefore, the learned lower appellate court was right in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. The substantial questions of law as raised are answered against the plaintiffs. No merit. Dismissed. 27.01.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge