R.S.A. No. 242 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 242 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.04.2010 Balwant Singh ... Appellant Versus Bawa Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the appellant. --- Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2009, passed by the learned courts below in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff/respondents. The plaintiffs filed a suit on the pleadings, that they were owners in possession of Killa No.23/2, situated at village Kot Todar Mal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and that the defendant has no right or title in the said property. The plaintiffs claimed injunction against the defendant/appellant from interfering in possession of the plaintiff/respondents from raising any construction or interfering in the use of the property belonging to the plaintiff/respondents. R.S.A. No. 242 of 2010 2 In the written statement filed by the defendant/appellant a specific plea was taken that he was not raising any construction. In view of the stand taken, the relief for injunction restraining the defendant from raising construction was not pressed. Learned courts below in view of the admission of the defendant/appellant held that the plaintiff/respondents were owners in possession of killa No.232 and therefore, defendant/appellant was restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff/respondents. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this case :- 1. Whether the learned courts below could grant injunction against the defendant/appellant in spite of specific stand taken by the appellant/defendant that he was not interfering in possession of the plaintiff/respondents? 2. Whether the learned courts below failed to take note of the fact that the suit was filed with mala fide intention as the plaintiffs wanted to interfere in the ownership and possession of the defendant/appellant? In support of the substantial questions of law referred to above, the learned counsel for the appellant contended, that in view of the stand taken by the defendant in the suit, suit itself was rendered infructuous and therefore, there was no occasion to grant decree for injunction. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant that the R.S.A. No. 242 of 2010 3 real intention of the plaintiff/respondents was to interfere in possession of the defendant/appellant over Killa No.24/1/1 measuring 2 kanals which was under the ownership and possession of defendant/appellant. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned courts below on appreciation of evidence and pleadings rightly decreed the suit for injunction and restrained the defendant/appellant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff/respondents. The defendant/appellant had not filed any counter claim seeking injunction against the plaintiff/respondents from interfering in the possession of the defendant/appellant over Killa No.24/1/1 and therefore, the learned courts below could not have granted any relief in favour of the defendant/appellant as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. No evidence was led nor it was pleaded case of the defendant/appellant that the suit filed was mala fide. Learned courts below rightly held that if the defendant/appellant was aggrieved by any action of the plaintiff/respondents, he was entitled to file a separate suit, having not filed counter claim in the present suit. The substantial questions of law raised, therefore, do not arise for consideration and in any case, deserve to be answered against the defendant/appellant. Ordered accordingly. No merit. The regular second appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. 1904.2010 (Vinod K.Sharma) sd/rp Judge