Davinder Singh v. Surjit Singh & ORS

C.R. No.269 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.269 of 2016 Date of Decision.18.01.2016 Davinder Singh ......Petitioner Vs.

Surjit Singh and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1.

A private individual who complained a trespass and sought for injunction from putting up construction against the defendant through a petition, was resisted in the action by the party contending that the construction which he is making is after a sanction from the Municipal Authority. The plaintiff has averred that the Municipal Authority has wrongly granted a sanction and the defendant cannot be permitted to put up further construction. This according to the defendant justified the impleadment of Municipal Authority in suit. I reject this contention and hold that the Municipal Authority will not be competent to decide on whether the property which is being constructed upon by the defendant is actually within his own area or there is any encroachment into the plaintiff's property in the manner contended by the plaintiff. That will have to depend an adjudication inter se between the parties and the Municipal Authority cannot be joined. It is contended PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.01.19 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.269 of 2016 -2that the defendant has actually filed suit against the Municipal Authority itself. This will not give any leverage for the defendant to contend that the Municipal Authority must be made as party. No enquiry conducted by the Municipality of where the building is situate will have any value unless the contention is that the property constructed upon is on a municipal land. If it is property contended by the plaintiff to belong to him then that dispute will be resolved between the plaintiff and defendant and not in the presence of Municipal Authority. 2.

The order already passed by the court below is maintained and the civil revision is dismissed.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 18, 2016 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.01.19 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document