Karnail Singh v. Manjit Kaur And ORS

RSA No.4950 of 2012 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4950 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision.31.08.2015 Karnail Singh .......Appellant

Versus

Manjit Kaur and others ......Respondents 2.

RSA No.5381 of 2012 Manjit Kaur and others .......Appellants

Versus

Karnail Singh ......Respondent

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the appellant in RSA No.4950 of 2012 and for the respondent in RSA No.5381 of 2012.

Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the appellants in RSA No.5381 of 2012 and for the respondent in RSA No.4950 of 2012.

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.

The counsel in RSA No.4950 of 2012 is unwilling to argue the matter and states that there is no substantial question of law that arises in the second appeal. The counsel in RSA No.5381 of 2012 makes reference to a document which is in vernacular but he is not able to read the same. All that I can gather from the truncated argument placed before me is that the plaintiff's claim was with reference to property in Khasra No.665 while the defendant was claiming the property in Khasra No.661/1. The plaintiff's contention was that the defendants had encroached upon the property and put up construction and therefore, PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.03 12:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA No.4950 of 2012 (O&M) -2wanted a relief of mandatory injunction as well as removal of construction made in the plaintiff's property. The Court had found that the defendants had put up construction only in the property which they owned and dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking for mandatory injunction. However, it allowed for the preventive injunction to be granted against the defendants. The contention of the defendants was that there had been an agreement between the plaintiff's predecessor and the defendants' predecessor with reference to passage in Khasra No.665 and the defendants' had right to go through the said passage. If there is an agreement between the parties over which the defendants could exercise their right of way, a relief of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff, according to them, was not justified.

2.

I asked the counsel to inform me about the nature of agreement between the parties and also wanted him to explain to me, if it was in vernacular what the document contains. The counsel says that he cannot read even the vernacular document he has in his hands because it is not readable. The cases presented in the year 2012 cannot be allowed to be languishing in Court with no assistance from the counsel.

3.

I find that no substantial question of law is involved in the second appeals. Both the second appeals are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 31, 2015 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.03 12:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document