IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2287 of 2006 Date of Decision : March 31, 2008 Ram Lal @ Ram Pal ....Appellant Versus Sham Sunder .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Anil Ghangas, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Singh Dhull, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. Judgment passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya on 8.3.2004 while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent granting him permanent injunction against the defendant-appellant from parking any Rehri and from creating any type of obstruction, hindrance and nuisance in the use and enjoy of roads by plaintiff adjoining to his shop towards southern and western side, was upheld in first appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Regular Second Appeal No. 2287 of 2006 -2- The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that he was tenant in the shop for the last more than 25 years and running his business of sale of shoes. The doors of the said shop opened towards the southern and western sides on to the roads. The defendant had no right or title to create any obstruction but had parked his Rehri in front of the southern and western roads of the shop of the plaintiff. Therefore, he filed suit for the grant of permanent injunction. The defendant-appellant opposed the claim of the plaintiff by asserting that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary party, i.e. Municipal Committe, Dasuya, which was the owner of the property in question. On merits, it was stated that there was a concrete slab placed on the dirty water drain of Municipal Committee towards the southern and western corner of the shop of the plaintiff, where the defendant parked the Rehri. He had been enjoying this facility since April 1976 and his right had matured into an easement by way of prescription. He was also paying Teh Bazari to the Municipal Committee in respect of the parking of his Rehri at the place in question. It may not be out of place to mention here that the defendant- appellant had earlier filed a suit for grant of decree of permanent injunction against plaintiff-respondent from interfering in parking/placing his Rehri as a fruit seller adjoining to the shop of the plaintiff. This suit was dismissed on 18.10.1996 by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dasuya. An appeal was preferred but the Regular Second Appeal No. 2287 of 2006 -3- same was also dismissed on 28.1.1999. After taking into consideration the dismissal of the earlier suit filed by the defendant-appellant as well as his appeal, besides the evidence led in the present suit, learned trial Court held the plaintiff to be entitled to a decree for permanent injunction. This finding was affirmed by the first appellate Court. It has been submitted on behalf of the defendant-appellant that on 27.6.1993, a written compromise had been arrived at between the parties and therefore, the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to the relief sought by him. The aforementioned alleged writing has not been produced by the appellant. Even the same was not produced in the previous suit instituted by the defendant-appellant. No benefit of the same would, thus, accrue to the appellant. The plea of the defendant-appellant regarding non-joinder of the Municipal Committee, which according to him was a necessary party, and also the plea that he had been paying Teh Bazari to the Municipal Committee are not sufficient to deny the relief sought by the plaintiff- respondent. The defendant had every right to ply his Rehri but he had no right to park the same adjoining to the shop of the plaintiff towards southern and western side and thereby creating obstruction/hindrance and nuisance in the use and enjoy of roads by the plaintiff. Once the suit filed by the defendant-appellant for the grant of Regular Second Appeal No. 2287 of 2006 -4- permanent injunction had been dismissed by the trial Court and also by the first appellate Court, it can safely be concluded that the plaintiff- respondent was justified in seeking the issuance of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from parking any Rehri or from creating any type of obstruction, hindrance and nuisance in the use and enjoy of roads by plaintiff adjoining to his shop. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned lower Courts. No such substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, arise for determination. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 31, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO