IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1137 of 2009 (O & M) Date of decision:- 29.07.2009. Imperial Hotel and Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus M/s J.M.P. Enterprises ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present:- Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.C.Kinra, Advocate for the respondent. A.N.JINDAL J. Both the Courts below declined to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff restraining the defendant-respondent from raising/creating construction in the passage used by them, therefore, the present revision petition has been preferred. The factual background of the case is that the petitioner purchased the property in dispute for Rs.40,00,000/- from the defendant- respondent (herein referred as the defendant) vide sale deed dated 09.07.1990 . Defendant-respondent vide the aforesaid sale deed had given liberty to the petitioner-plaintiff to raise the construction of shops on all the four sides of the plot thus implied by giving them right to use passage on the Northern side of the plot in question also. It has been averred that the plaintiff has as such right of common passage towards the Northern side of the purchased property. It was also submitted that the tenants of the Civil Revision No. 1137 of 2009 -2- plaintiff namely Imperial Furniture House, Noor Communication and Sukhdeep Repair Works have their entrance from the common passage existing on the Northern side of its building. The plaintiff and its tenants have been using this common passage as entrance due to the rights having purchased vide sale deed as referred to above. However, on hurdles being created, the plaintiff-petitioner preferred present suit. Alongwith the suit an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The suit as well as application were contested by the defendant with all vehemence admitting that the sale deed was executed and registered by it. However, with regard to specific boundaries, there was nothing mentioned about the use of passage by the plaintiff on the Northern side, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to use the passage on the Northern side. Heard. Without going deep into the controversy, and without commenting on the merits of the case, there is no denying fact that there exists a passage on the Northern side and that the plot was sold by the defendant to the petitioner on 09.7.1990 and it has also not been denied that respondent gave liberty to the petitioner to construct shops on all four sides, which implies that the plaintiff could also use the passage on the Northern side. In order to establish the existence of passage on the Northern side of the property of the plaintiff , the local commission appointed by the Court visited the spot, who has also not denied about existence of the passage at the spot. Even the photographs placed on record reveals that there is a passage on the Northern side of the building of the plaintiff. Anyway without commenting regarding appreciation of evidence and by leaving it to Civil Revision No. 1137 of 2009 -3- the trial Court to make true interpretations of the sale deed it is prima facie observed that liberty to construct shops to the plaintiff on all the four sides of the plot was given with intention that he could use the passage on the Northern side also. Finding the recital in the sale deed, which implies the use of the land as passage on the Northern side, I deem it appropriate to hold that plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour that the occupants of the shops are now prevented to use the passage on the Northern side, thus, certainly they shall suffer irreparable loss. Resultantly, I hereby partly allow the petition and set aside the impugned order and direct both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to use of the passage by the petitioner as it exists today. July 29, 2009 (A.N.JINDAL) vj JUDGE