C.R. No.1930 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1930 of 2009 Date of Decision: 09.02.2010 Masroor Hassan .……Petitioner Versus Municipal Committee, Nuh ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. R. S. Sihota, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B. R. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate for the respondent. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is revision petition by plaintiff Masroor Hassan, who has been unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Plaintiff filed suit against respondent- MunicipalCommittee, Nuh for permanent injunction alleging that the plaintiff and his brother are owners in possession of the suit property shown by letters ABCD in site plan (Annexure P-2). The portion EFCD shown in red colour in the site plan is private passage of the plaintiff and his brother, but the defendant threatened to encroach upon the said portion and to raise pucca construction thereon without any right to do so. The plaintiff along with plaint moved application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C) seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from raising any construction C.R. No.1930 of 2009 -2- over the disputed portion EFCD and from encroaching thereupon till decision of the suit. The defendant-respondent inter alia pleaded that the disputed site EFCD is a public street and the plaintiff is causing obstruction in public development work thereof. The defendant is brick paving the said public street. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh vide impugned order dated 18.05.2006 dismissed plaintiff’s application for temporary injuction. Appeal preferred against the said order by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Nuh vide impugned judgment dated 27.01.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that no such passage has been shown to be in existence in Aks Shijra (Annexure P-1) and, therefore, the disputed site cannot be said to be public passage. The contention cannot be accepted because Killa numbers depicted in Aks Shijra (Annexure P-1) have not been mentioned either in the sale deed vide which the plaintiff and his brother claimed to have purchased the disputed property or even in the plaint. On the other hand, in the sale deed dated 09.03.2005 vide which the plaintiff and his brother purchased their property, it has been specifically mentioned that there is a public passage towards south of the property sold. The disputed passage is also towards south of the property claimed by the plaintiff and his brother. There is no other public passage towards further south of C.R. No.1930 of 2009 -3- the disputed site which is claimed to be private passage by the defendant. Consequently, the disputed site itself is common passage as recited in the sale deed vide which the plaintiff and his brother purchased the property. The plaintiff and his brother cannot claim anything more than that purchased by them through sale deed dated 09.03.2005. Consequently, the plaintiff has no prima facie case for temporary injunction because the disputed site cannot be said to be private passage of the plaintiff and his brother. There is no infirmity much less illegality in the orders of the Courts below. The instant revision petition is completely devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the suit. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 09.02.2010 A. Kaundal