C.R. No. 424 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 424 of 2012 Date of decision : 13.02.2013 Gram Panchayat Sahabpur ....Petitioner V/s Raghbir Singh ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J. This revision petition is directed against the orders passed by courts below whereby defendant has been restrained from raising any construction or causing obstruction in the entry gate of Haveli/house of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order on the ground that findings of both the courts below are incorrect. A perusal of site plan would show that alternative entry to the premises of the plaintiff is available. The entire possession has been clarified by the defendant in their written statement but courts below had ignored the same from consideration. This apart, civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A suit was preferred by plaintiff-Raghbir Singh seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from raising any construction on the site or obstruct entry gate to Haveli/house of the plaintiff. Plaintiff contended that as there was no other method C.R. No. 424 of 2012 2 of ingress/outgress from the haveli, defendant-Gram Panchayat intended to cause obstruction. This was due to local politics in the village. Prayer was resisted by defendant. They claim that plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit land. He had merely agree to purchase the suit property vide agreement dated 12.07.2010. Thus, he had no right to claim injunction. Trial court on the basis of material on record came to the conclusion that only access to the property of the plaintiff was through the entry shown green in colour. It, thus, found that plaintiff had prima facie case in his favour. It granted interim injunction restraining the defendant from causing any obstruction to entry gate of haveli of plaintiff. Findings were upheld by the appellate court. I find no infirmity with the order passed by the courts below. The argument of counsel that courts below have misread the site plan and other documents on record is without any merit. At this stage, it is to be seen whether plaintiff has prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. Needless to observe that in case entry to haveli/house of the plaintiff is blocked, it would cause great harassment to him. All the parameters envisaged under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC having been met, courts below have rightly granted the injunction prayed for. Revision petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. February 13, 2013 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE