RSA No.1024 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.2974-C of 2009 & RSA No.1024 of 2009 Decided on : 05.02.2010 Kanwar Pal ... Appellant versus Municipal Council, Bhiwani ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.To be referred to the reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) CM No.2974-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 43 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.1024 of 2009 This order shall dispose of RSA Nos.1024 & 446 of 2009 as common questions of facts and law are involved. Brief facts of the case are taken from RSA No.1024 of 2009. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for permanent injunction restraining the respondent – Municipal Committee, Bhiwani from proceeding further in the matter of notice issued to the appellant. The plea taken by the appellant RSA No.1024 of 2009 -2- was that he had purchased the land in dispute by way of sale deed. Both the courts below have held that the appellant was not able to establish the title of his vendor and thus, dismissed the suit. Following questions of law have been proposed: a) Whether the findings of the ld. Lower courts below are perverse and are not sustainable in the eyes of law? b) Whether the ld. Courts below have committed error of law by not relying upon the judgment cited by the counsel of the plaintiff? c) Whether the ld. 1st Appellate Court has committed error of law by not deciding the appeal in terms of Order 41 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code of 1908? d) Whether there is no evidence on the record to reach the conclusion that the suit property is public property and vest in the Municipal Council, Bhiwani and adverse finding is not sustainable? e) Whether title is not to be decided in the injunction suit? f) Whether the ld. Lower courts have taken a totally wrong approach while passing the impugned judgment & decree? However, learned counsel has pressed only question No.(e). He has argued that once the courts below had held that the suit was not maintainable then the subsequent findings on RSA No.1024 of 2009 -3- title should not be held to bind the parties. In my opinion, interest of justice would be met, if even while dismissing this appeal a direction is issued that the appellant can respond to the impugned notice and the same would be decided on its own merits and findings recorded by the courts below would not have any bearing on the said notice. With these observations, this appeal is dismissed. February 05, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE