In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 663 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: September 08, 2009 Ramesh Chand .. Petitioner Vs. Om Parkash and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the order dated 3.1.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.10.2008 dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff restraining the defendants from encroaching upon the public street shown in the red colour as well as green colour or raising any construction over the street. The plaintiff-petitioner (herein referred as 'the plaintiff') has alleged that the defendants-respondents (herein referred as 'the defendants') were trying to encroach upon the public passage as well as the open land of the plaintiff shown in the green and red colour, whereas, the defendants have refuted these allegations and stated that they are raising construction on the old foundations. Both the Courts below refused to grant injunction. Heard. Site plan placed on record by the plaintiff indicates that the disputed portion is shown in the red colour. The picture would also be clear from the report of the Local Commissioner, Ms. Seema Sharma, Advocate, who visited the spot and observed as under :- “That mark A, B, N, P is the disputed property where marked A, B is the old foundation now almost parallel to the earth filled with stones and bricks which has been shown in red colour in the site plan. Adjacent to the old foundation marked Civil Revision No. 663 of 2009 -2- A. B there is another foundation where there exist two sainchees ( i.e. platform type structure) used to sit generally used to be built on either sides of the main gate for almost 3-4 decades as shown in the site plan with green colour on either sides to the entrance of the plot now almost parallel to the earth approximately 2 ¼ ft. x 2 ½ ft. in size filled with bricks. At points A, C and D, there are three ditches about 3 ft. wide and 4 ft. deep which have been dug to install pillar. That from point A to B, there had been an old wall of about 12 ft. at height as there are marks of broken/demolished wall at point B which is the corner of the house of the plaintiff clearly shown in the photographs taken by the photographer at the instance of the Local Commissioner.” In the light of the Local Commissioner's report, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff with regard to making any encroachment over his land or over the public street. There is no evidence whatsoever brought on record by the plaintiff in order to prima facie establish that any portion of the land has been encroached upon by the defendants. Old foundations of the house of the defendants clearly reveal that the defendants were having some construction in front of the house of the plaintiff at the corner, where there were old foundation depicted vide letter “A, B” and shown in the red colour adjoining to that in the yellow and green colour, yet it is clear that the defendants are not encroaching upon any portion of the land of the plaintiff or the public street. Both the courts below have decided against the plaintiff and no perversity or arbitrariness has been pointed out so as to make a dissenting opinion from what was observed by the courts below. No merits. Dismissed. September 08, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge