R.S.A. No. 2889 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2889 of 2005 Date of decision : 3.3.2011 Shashi Goel ......Appellant Versus The Yamuna Nagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Yamuna Nagar, Branch Office Jagadhri through its Chairman/ MD and others .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for Mr. L.R. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction that defendants be directed to remove the wall DC raised by them by encroaching upon 10 ' wide passage on the southern side of the property belonging to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plaintiff was owner in possession of suit property marked 'ABCD' in the site plan. 10 ' wide passage had been left by the plaintiff on the southern side for her exclusive use. Plaintiff had opened doors, windows, ventilators and outlets for discharge of water in the passage in dispute. The defendants had raised a wall and had, thus, encroached upon the passage in dispute. Hence, the suit R.S.A. No. 2889 of 2005 2 was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the site plan attached by the plaintiff with the plaint was incorrect. There was no such passage measuring 10 ' wide on the southern side of the property belonging to the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction as alleged ? OPP. 2. Whether the property shown as ABCD in the attached site plan is owned and possessed by the plaintiff ? If so its effect ? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties as alleged ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is barred by principle of resjudicata as alleged ? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit ? OPD. 6. Whether the defendants are entitled to the special costs as alleged ? OPD. 7. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 21.7.2004 trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 4.3.2005. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. R.S.A. No. 2889 of 2005 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. A perusal of the site plan relied upon by the plaintiff Ex.P-18 reveals that no passage has been shown on the southern side of the house of the plaintiff. Plaintiff had not placed on record any sale deed to substantiate her plea that 10 ' wide passage had been left for her exclusive use on the southern side of her house. A perusal of Ex.P-22 sale deed, executed in favour of Raj Kumari and Saraswati Devi, reveals that Babu Ram and others had sold property measuring 60 ' x 42 ' bounded as under : “North : 10 ' wide street. South : 10 ' wide street. East : Plot of Ram Lal s/o Malik Chand. West: Street and the property of the vendor.” Thus, the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P-18 site plan do not match with the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P-22. The report submitted by the Local Commissioner which he had prepared in the earlier suit, filed by the plaintiff, could not be relied upon as the said Local Commissioner had not been examined by the plaintiff in this case. Thus, the plaintiff had failed to prove her case. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 3, 2011 Anand