R.S.A.No.3256 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3256 of 2008 Date of Decision : 08.10.2009 Smt. Mindho ...Appellant Versus Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Ms. J.J.Kaur, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for permanent injunction in respect of suit property was dismissed. The plaintiff claims to have inherited the property of Nagaya Ram vide registered Will dated 19.3.1997 and thus, claims to be in possession of the suit property as owner. The plaintiff was served a notice by the Municipal Corporation dated 15.5.2000 under Sections 243/246 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. The notice was served upon the plaintiff on 19.5.2000 and on the next day i.e. 20.5.2000, the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction. Such suit has been dismissed by the Courts below, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff has not been able to show the title of Nagaya Ram over the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is in settled possession of the suit property and, therefore, the appellant R.S.A.No.3256 of 2008 2 can be dispossessed only in accordance with law by a person, who has a better title. There cannot be any dispute with the argument raised. However, it is apparent that the Municipal Corporation has initiated proceedings by serving a notice under Sections 243/246 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. Soon after the notice was served upon the plaintiff, she has filed the present suit for injunction. It is, thus, apparent that it is the plaintiff, who has preempted the due process initiated by the Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff invoked the jurisdiction of this Court even before the Municipal Corporation could finally pass an order in pursuance of show cause notice dated 15.5.2000. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court in second appeal. However, it is open to the Municipal Corporation to take further steps in terms of notice dated 15.5.2000 in accordance with law. The respondent shall act in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 or such other law applicable to take possession from the plaintiff. 08.10.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE