RSA No.2973 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2973 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.02.2010. Gram Panchayat .……Appellant Versus Gopi ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendant-Gram Panchayat having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff-respondent Gopi filed suit for permanent injunction pleading that plaintiff is owner in possession of 4 marlas of land comprised of Khasra No.606/1 situated in village Ajaib as described in the plaint. Defendant has no right, title or interest therein, but defendant wanted to encroach upon portion thereof shown in red colour by ABCD in the site plan, by merging it with street. The plaintiff accordingly sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and from constructing street in portion shown in red colour in the site plan. Defendant inter alia pleaded that defendant is owner in possession of land of khasra No.613. The plaintiff encroached upon 1 marla area of khasra No.613 and on defendant's application, the RSA No.2973 of 2009 -2- plaintiff was ordered to vacate the said encroached area by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Rohtak. The said order was affirmed in appeal and writ petition preferred by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the said encroachment made by the plaintiff was got removed. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meham vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2006, decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the extent that defendant was restrained from making interference and dismantling the boundary wall of the plaintiff over khasra No.606/1 measuring 4 marlas. However, it was also directed that the decree of injunction will be used by the plaintiff as shield and not as sword and under the garb of the judgment and decree, the plaintiff would not be permitted to make encroachment or construction over gali (street) bearing khasra No.613 which has already been got vacated from the plaintiff by defendant Gram Panchayat in due course of law. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 21.01.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the defendant is owner in possession of khasra No.613 and, therefore, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the said khasra No.613. The contention does not help the appellant in any manner because the trial Court has not granted any relief regarding khasra No.613 claimed by the defendant. On the other hand, the trial Court has directed that the plaintiff under the garb of the judgment and RSA No.2973 of 2009 -3- decree passed by the trial Court would not be permitted to make encroachment or construction over land of khasra No.613. However, the defendant-appellant admittedly has no right, title or interest in land of khasra No.606/1 regarding which suit of the plaintiff has been decreed. Consequently, there is no infirmity much less illegality or perversity in the judgments of the Courts below so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is dismissed in limine being bereft of any merit. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 02.02.2010 A. Kaundal