Civil Revision No.224 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.224 of 2011 Date of Decision 13.01.2011 Jagbir Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS Kaptan Singh ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Notice of motion. Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of caveator-respondent. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 17.11.2010, passed by Addl. Distt. Judge, Karnal, setting aside the order dated 03.09.2010, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, dismissing the application of the respondent-plaintiff Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the petitioner- defendant has preferred this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per the Local Commissioner's report dated 20.04.2010 (Annexure P-10), made by Naib Tehsildar, Karnal, there is no passage in khasra Nos.23/24 whereas there is a passage in Khasra Nos.16 & 25. The extract of the report is reproduced as under:- “In the presence of the parties, the Burji Survey number is available in Khasra No.23/25 at the spot. The same was taken Civil Revision No.224 of 2011 2 to be correct. The demarcation was done with a 100 feet scale and the killa line was established. According to the old record in the khewat, there is a rasta uptil Khasra No.25/8 and after which at the spot all the co-sharers for ingress and outgress have left a common passage of 2 karam 11 feet which has been shown in green colour in the site plan. At the spot in Khasra No.23/24, one Poultry farm, a cattle shed and a house and a gher has been constructed by the defendant Jagbir Singh. In the east corner of Khasra No.23/17, a 2 karam rasta has been connected with the lands of Kaptan Singh which has been shown in green colour. The site plan (Annexure P-11), appended to the report reveals that the passage is in existence by the western boundary of Khasra No.25 and it extends to Eastern side of Khasra No.17 and then touches the land of plaintiff-respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner would raise the construction in Khasra No.24 without disturbing the disputed passage After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and in view of the categoric statement, made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the injunction is being sought just to create obstruction in the construction raised by the petitioner in his own land. In these circumstances, it would have to be held that the petitioner is having a prima facie case in his favour and balance of convenience also lies in his favour. If he is not allowed to raise construction on his own land then he would suffer irreparable loss. Civil Revision No.224 of 2011 3 In view of the matter, this petition is partly accepted. The petitioner would not create any obstruction in the ingress or outgress of the respondent in the passage as shown in the site plan (Annexure P-11) during the pendency of the suit. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise any construction over Khasra Nos.24 and 17 without creating any obstruction in the passage during the pendency of the suit. However, it is made clear that the observations made above would not have any bearing over the merits of the case. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 13.01.2011 mamta-II