C.R. No.2928 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.2928 of 2007 Date of Decision: 15.1.2008 Inder Ram .....Petitioner Vs. Sohan Lal and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate for the respondents. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is,for setting aside the orders, dated 16.11.2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajpura and dated 13.4.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court and the appellate Court erred while dismissing the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC and the appeal respectively. The jamabandi for the year 1973-74, records that the petitioner is owner in possession of Khasra No.108(4-19), 109(5-9). The petitioner has constructed a house therein but the respondents seek to demolish his house. The Courts below wrongly dismissed the application and the appeal by placing reliance upon an incorrect report submitted by the Assistant Engineer in the office of B.D.P.O. Dera Bassi, to the effect that the C.R. No.2928 of 2007 2 petitioner had encroached upon the path, leading to the respondents house, by constructing a wall. The said wall lies within the Khasra No.108(4-19), 109(5-9), i.e. the land owned by the petitioner. The learned Courts below were, therefore, not justified in dismissing the application for grant of temporary injunction and the appeal. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that under the garb of constructing a house, the petitioner has encroached upon a path, leading to the respondents house. The encroachment has been verified by the Assistant Engineer working in the office of B.D.P.O. Dera Bassi. The learned Courts below, therefore, rightly declined the prayer for an injunction and dismissed the application and appeal. It is further submitted that there is no proposal, whether of the respondents or of the authorities, to demolish any portion of the petitioner's house. They only want to remove the encroachment in the path. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The impugned orders do not suffer from any error, whether on fact or of law, as would warrant interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has admittedly constructed a house and is,therefore, entitled to pray for and be granted an injunction with respect to his house. However, the petitioner's attempt to encroach upon a path, under the garb of saving his house, cannot be countenanced. The petitioner has allegedly raised a wall that blocks the path leading to the respondents house. This fact has been verified by the Assistant Engineer. The petitioner cannot take recourse to an injunction so as to perpetuate an illegality. Consequently, the respondents are restrained C.R. No.2928 of 2007 3 from interfering with the petitioner's house during the pendency of the suit. However, any encroachment/construction raised on the path, leading to the respondents house shall not be protected by this injunction order. With the aforementioned observations, the present petition stands disposed of. Any observation made herein above shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case by the Courts below or by the parties. 15.1.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE