Civil Revision No. 7237 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7237 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.09.2009 Badan Singh Nambardar and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rajeev Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the application moved by the petitioners for grant of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff/petitioners brought a suit claiming injunction against the respondents from raising boundary wall on the sides of the road by claiming it to be a public road. In the suit, the plaintiff/petitioners took a stand, that no such or similar suit was earlier filed by the plaintiff/petitioners, nor any suit was pending in any Court. The learned Courts below rejected the injunction application moved by the plaintiff/petitioners, by recording a finding that the boundary wall is being raised on the land acquired by the State Government. The defendants being owners of the land, had every right to use it. The learned Courts below also took note of the fact, that Civil Revision No. 7237 of 2008 -2- some of the plaintiffs had earlier filed a suit, in which they sought similar relief, which was dismissed, and during the pendency of said suit present suit was filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended, that the road being a public road, could not be blocked by the respondents, therefore, the learned Courts below committed an error in rejecting the application, though the plaintiff/petitioners were able to prove prima facie case. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is totally mis-conceived. As per pleadings of the plaintiff/petitioners themselves, no road is being blocked, as the wall is being raised on the sides of the road leaving the road free for use by the public. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that there was concealment by the petitioners regarding the previous suit, which was still pending, the learned Courts below were right in coming to conclusion that the petitioners had not come to the Court with clean hands and, therefore, were not entitled to discretionary relief for injunction. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Courts below. Because of the conduct of the petitioners, this revision is dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). (Vinod K. Sharma) September 09, 2009 Judge R.S.