C. R. No. 3422 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 3422 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 21, 2010 Sandeep Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Nanak Chand .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Sandeep Singh plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing judgment dated 07.05.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, thereby allowing appeal filed by defendant-respondent Nanak Chand against order dated 22.02.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar. The trial court, vide order Annexure P-2, allowed application of plaintiff for temporary injunction and restrained the defendant from encroaching upon the plot of the plaintiff. However, the appellate court, vide impugned judgment (Annexure P-1), set aside the said order of the trial court and dismissed plaintiff's application for temporary C. R. No. 3422 of 2010 2 injunction. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Plaintiff alleged that he is owner in possession of a house in Patel Nagar, Hisar having purchased it vide sale deed dated 06.02.1996. Defendant is also owner in possession of other house in Patel Nagar, Hisar having purchased it vide sale deed dated 19.06.1984. The two houses are adjacent to each other. There was intervening wall between the two houses, which is the bone of contention. The said wall stands demolished. The plaintiff sought temporary injunction restraining the defendant from raising construction on land in excess of the land purchased by him and from encroaching upon the house of the plaintiff till decision of the suit. The defendant alleged that in agreement to sell dated 11.10.1982 in his favour, northern side of his property was 16 feet, but it was inadvertently mentioned to be 14 feet in the sale deed although even as per municipal record, the northern side of the defendant's house is 16 feet. Defendant also alleged that the plaintiff has forcibly demolished the boundary wall and encroached upon Government land. The plaintiff does not have any land adjoining to the property of the defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the defendant wants to encroach upon land in excess of the land purchased by him. However, on the basis of this contention, no relief can be granted to C. R. No. 3422 of 2010 3 the plaintiff unless plaintiff depicts that the defendant intends to encroach upon any part of the land purchased by the plaintiff himself. However, the plaintiff has failed to do so. In fact, it appears that there is some excess land which appears to be bone of contention between the parties. However, since the plaintiff does not have any right, title or interest in the excess land, no injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiff regarding the same. The defendant does not intend to encroach upon the land purchased by the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff appears to be still in possession of excess land than the land purchased by him. In view of the aforesaid, there appears to be no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of the appellate court. The plaintiff has not made out a case for grant of temporary injunction because the disputed part of the land prima facie does not belong to the plaintiff. There is, therefore, no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. May 21, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE