C.R. No.500 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.500 of 2008 Date of Decision: 4.2.2008 Amrik Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Municipal Committee/Municipality Sirhind and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.S.S. Siao, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this revision petition is, to an order dated 24.4.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, dismissing an application, filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the order dated 3.12.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, affirming the said order and dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit praying for a declaration and also for a permanent injunction, more particularly against the Municipal Committee, that as he was in open, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile adverse possession, he could not be dispossessed forcibly or illegally. The petitioner asserted that he was a Khewatdar (proprietor) of Village Sirhind. His late father Atma Singh, who was in possession had expired on 14.5.1997. The possession of the premises and all rights attendant thereto had passed on to the petitioner. The petitioner is in actual cultivating C.R. No.500 of 2008 2 possession of the suit property and is, therefore, entitled to an interim injunction to protect his possession. The respondents, in their written statement pleaded that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The petitioner had concealed and failed to disclose that his father had filed a similar suit against the Municipal Committee. The suit was dismissed by the then Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, vide order dated 30.8.1996. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge,Fatehgarh Sahib on 9.4.1997. The petitioner’s claim with respect to adverse possession was also controverted and it was asserted that the petitioner is a trespasser and, therefore,the Courts below have rightly declined the relief of an injunction. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. The learned trial Court, as also the first appellate Court, held that the suit property had vested in the respondents. They also held that the petitioner had concealed that his father had filed a similar suit for grant of an injunction against the Municipal Committee, which was dismissed as was the appeal. The learned Courts below, considered the plea of adverse possession but declined any relief on that basis. It was held that the petitioner was a trespasser and, therefore, could not be granted the protection of law. I find no error of jurisdiction or of law, as would warrant interference in the impugned orders. The exercise of discretion by the learned Courts below, is neither perverse nor illegal. A similar suit filed by the petitioner’s father was dismissed as far back as in the year 1996. The C.R. No.500 of 2008 3 petitioner claims to draw rights with respect to the suit property from his father and, therefore, was rightly refused the relief of injunction. No merits. Dismissed in limini. 4.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE