Civil Revision No. 6005 of 2008 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6005 of 2008 (O & M) Date of decision:- 02.4.2009. Ashok Kumar ...Petitioner Versus M/s Priyag Commercial Pvt. Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the respondents-caveators. JASWANT SINGH J. C.M. No.1777-CII of 2009 Application is allowed and the documents Annexures P-3 to P- 5 taken on record. C.R. No.6005 of 2008 The petitioner-plaintiff by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 02.6.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Gurgaon whereby his interim injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed as well as the order dated 13.09.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon affirming the order dated 02.6.2008 in appeal. Briefly, the facts as alleged in the plaint are that Civil Revision No. 6005 of 2008 (O & M) -2- petitioner/plaintiff-Ashok Kumar is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 5 Kanals bearing Khewat No.265, Khata No.298, Rect. No.84, Killa No.3/1 (5-0) shown in yellow colour in the site plan (Annexure P-3 herewith) situated in the revenue estate of village Ghamroaj, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon. The said land was purchased by plaintiff from one Raghunath son of Shiv Dhan resident of the same village. It is averred that earlier the said Raghunath and thereafter the plaintiff used to cultivate the land and used rasta shown in red colour by letters marked ABCD in the site plan having 11 feet width to approach and cultivate the said land. The rasta is the only approach to their land. It is further averred that the petitioner- plaintiff has planted 'Aanwla' trees and the said rasta constitutes a “Dol”, upon which, as per custom of the village, no construction can be raised as the same is used for ingress and egress for the fields of the villagers. It is further averred that petitioner-plaintiff was constrained to file civil suit for permanent injunction and enforcing the easement rights when the defendants being owner in possession of the adjacent land, having purchased from same Raghunath, were determined to raise construction over the said rasta. Upon notice, respondents-defendants filed written statement. It was stated that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as M/s Doctor Fresh Heath Care Private Limited are in actual possession being Pattedar of the said suit land comprised in rectangle No. 84, Killa No. 1/1, ½ and 2/1 total measuring 8 Kanal 10 Marlas, for 25 years w.e.f. 12.7.2006 till 11.7.2031 vide deed dated 12.7.2006. It was denied that the plaintiff- petitioner had any concern with the same and in fact he illegally wanted to interfere in the ownership and possession of the respondents to stall the Civil Revision No. 6005 of 2008 (O & M) -3- development of Special Economic Zone. After hearing both sides, the learned courts below dismissed the injunction application filed by the petitioner. While doing so, if was found by the Courts below that (i) respondent no.1 had leased out the land in favour of one Dr. Fresh Health Care Private Limited vide lease deed bearing Vasika No. 2119 dated 12.7.2006 i.e. prior to the filing of the suit and plaintiff made no attempt to impleading Dr. Fresh Health Care Private Limited as party to the suit; (ii) the Ministry of Commerce and Industry vide notification dated 17.4.2007 authorised Dr. Fresh Health Care Private Limited to develop and operate a special economic zone for information and technology services at Gurgaon upon the land stated above and the alleged passage in dispute forms part of the said land; (iii) since the nature of the suit land had been changed so the respondents could not be restrained from raising construction on the property owned by them; and (iv) the Aks Shijra shown by the petitioner had neither been attested by any revenue authorities nor it showed existence of any rasta. Further the petitioner had miserably failed to produce any material on record to show the existence of the alleged rasta. Vide order dated 10.11.2008 passed by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner was granted time to produce the relevant material on record to show that the passage in question existed and was being used by the petitioner exclusively. The needful has not been done till today. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any material irregularity in the impugned orders which may warrant interference by this Court in the discretion exercised by them. Civil Revision No. 6005 of 2008 (O & M) -4- No merit. Dismissed. However, nothing stated above shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. April 02, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj (JUDGE)