RSA No.1542 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1542 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 29.04.2010 Love Kumar .. Appellant/Plaintiff Versus Municipal Council and another .. Respondents/Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Harkeerat Singh, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) . . . This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the Trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant for injunction restraining the respondent-Municipal Council for dispossessing him forcibly except taking recourse to law. In the written statement, apart from other pleas, the plea taken by the respondent-Municipal Council was that they were seeking to evict the appellant only as per the law. The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the possession of the appellant was established. The learned Lower Appellate Court, however, took into account the fact that even as per the case of the appellant, after 1995, no amount was paid by the appellant to the Municipal Council. The learned Lower Appellate Court also took into consideration the fact that the respondents had issued a notice to the appellant (though in the name of the dead father of the appellant) and, instead of responding thereto the appellant had filed the RSA No.1542 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: instant suit. In this view of the matter, the learned Lower Appellate Court, as mentioned-above allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that once the appellant is in settled possession, injunction must be granted to him. In my opinion, considering the fact that the appellant is not in legal possession and the fact that as per the case of the respondent, it was trying to evict the appellant only by due process of law as also the fact that it was a notice which was challenged by the appellant, there would be no occasion to grant an injunction in favour of the appellant. The following questions have been proposed:- (i) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is in illegal possession of the suit property ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff/appellant can be displaced illegally and forcibly from the suit property ? As regards question No.(i), no argument has been addressed. As regards question No.(ii), as mentioned above, in view of the categoric stand of the respondent that it would evict the appellant only after taking recourse to law, no ground is made out for granting injunction. Consequently, holding all the proposed questions against the appellant, the present appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main appeal has been decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 29, 2010 sukhpreet