R.S.A.No. 397 of 2009 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 397 of 2009 Date of Decision:July 24, 2009 Surjit Singh and others ---Appellants versus Sidhu Bus Service ltd.and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. R.K.Sharma,Advocate, for the appellants *** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 2.2.2008 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2008. Hence, the present appeal. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “Plaintiffs claim themselves to be the owners of three wheelers; plaintiff No. 1 obtained a valid permit from the R.S.A.No. 397 of 2009 {2} Regional Transport Authority and is running three wheeler. Plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are running three wheelers after purchasing valid permits from one Gurmail Singh and Mohinder Singh, respectively, whereas plaintiff No. 4 claims that route permit was allocated to him. Defendant No. 1 runs his buses from Bathinda to village Gilla via Kachi Bhucho, Kahan Singh Wala, Chak Fateh Singh Wala, Chak Ram Singh Wala and Chak Bakhtu, whereas defendant No., 2 dhas the route permit from Bathinda to village Gill via same route. It is further pleaded that the defendants are taking undue benefit of wor “Kahan Singh Wala” which has been mentioned in the permits, whereas words 'Kahan Singh Wala' have been written on the building of State Bank of India, which is situated in the middle of Bhucho Mandi. Plaintiffs requested defendants to run their buses according to the route permits, but they did not accede to the requests of the plaintiffs, so they filed the instant suit. Defendants appeared and filed written statement taking legal objections to the effect that the plaintiffs have no locus standi or cause of action to file the present suit; that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and that the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands. Stand taken by defendants is that plaintiffs, themselves are violating the terms, conditions and destinations of their route permits and playing their three wheelers beyond limits of route permits allocated to them. Route permits allotted to them are as contract carriages R.S.A.No. 397 of 2009 {3} and they are to pick the passengers from one place to another and not to stop in between. The plaintiffs have no concern with village Kahan Singh Wala; the plaintiffs have no route permit to touch village Kahan Singh Wala, which is situated on western side of Bhucho Mandi. It is further averred that plaintiffs are violating the Rules because they have created extra sitting arrangement on both the sides of their vehicles. Please of the defendants is that they are plying their mini buses as per the permissible route permits issued by Regional Transport Authority, Ferozepur. Village Kahan Singh Wala is adjoining village Bhucho Mandi and State Bank of Patiala is constructed within the revenue limits of village Kahan Singh Wala and the road leading to Balianwali passes through Bhucho Mandi. Other averments of the plaint are denied and prayer is made for dismissal of the suit with costs.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (3)Whether no cause of action has been accrued to file the present suit? OPD (4)Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD R.S.A.No. 397 of 2009 {4} (5)Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiffs had failed to prove on record the route permits, if any, issued to them by the Transport Authority. It has been observed by the learned Additional District Judge in its judgment that appellant No. 1 had failed to prove his route permit. Neither the original nor its copy has been exhibited on the file. Appellants No. 2 and 3 had also not obtained any permission from the Transport Authority directly but had allegedly purchased the same from Gurmail Singh and Mohinder Singh respectively. However, they had failed to establish on record that the said route permits have been transferred in their name. Similarly, appellant No. 4 had also failed to prove on record that any permit was issued in his favour. He had also not appeared in the court to face cross examination. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to controvert the said factual position. Hence, the courts below have rightly held that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 24, 2009 PARAMJIT