R.S.A. No.1163 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1163 of 2008 Date of Decision:09.08.2011 Municipal Committee, Mandi Dabwali and another ......Appellants Versus Ramesh Kumar(since deceased) through his LRs .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sanjay S.Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the respondent. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered and is liable to be disposed of in the same terms of the judgment dated 08.02.2011 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (L.N.Mittal, J.), rendered in R.S.A. No.3903 of 2009 titled as Municipal Committee and another Versus Ramesh Kumar, the operative part of which is, as under:- “Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable and the plaintiff should have filed suit for recovery of the amount in question. However, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent countered this contention by relying on judgment of this Court in the case of P.C.Wadhwa Versus State Bank of Patiala, 2001 (3) Civil Court Cases 317 (P&H) and contended that suit for mandatory injunction is also maintainable. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. In the case of P.C.Wadhwa(supra), plaintiff had taken loan. He filed suit for declaration that he is liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 10.5% per annum. He also sought mandatory injunction directing the defendant-Bank R.S.A. No.1163 of 2008 2 to recast the loan amount after charging interest at the said rate and to return the excess amount, if any. It was held by this Court that suit for declaration and mandatory injunction was maintainable and it was not necessary to file suit for recovery. In view of judgment of this Court in the case of P.C.Wadhwa(supra), in the instant case also, suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” In this view of the matter and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed in the same terms of the judgment dated 08.02.2011 of this Court in Ramesh Kumar's case(supra). August 09, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE R.S.A. No.1163 of 2008 3 C.M.No.2602-C of 2011 in R.S.A. No.1163 of 2008 Present: Mr.Sanjay S.Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the respondent. **** After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record/contents of the application, which is supported by an affidavit of Rajan Garg son of Ramesh Kumar Garg, the same is allowed and the applicants mentioned in para 3 of the application, are ordered to be impleaded as the LRs of Ramesh Kumar Garg son of Megh Raj, respondent, subject to all just exceptions and for the limited purpose of deciding the present appeal only. The Registry is directed to make necessary corrections in the memo of parties in this relevant connection. August 09, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE