Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1309 (PNJ)

Gurdeep Singh v. K. K. Dikshit

2000-11-03

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2000
ORDER Bakhshish Kaur, J. - Gurdip Singh-petitioner dissatisfied with the order dated March 9, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda has preferred this revision as his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed after setting aside the Order passed by the trial Court in his favour. 2. Gurdip Singh - plaintiff claiming his possession and ownership over the property in dispute whereby the boundary wall and Kacha Pucca kotha have been raised filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Shri K.K. Dikshit, District Manager, Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (for short Markfed) from interfering in his possession. The contesting defendants raised preliminary objection that the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the defendants. Shri K.K. Dikshit has been impleaded in his individual capacity. The property in question measuring 1 acre; a kanal and 11 marlas i.e. 5768 square yards was allotted for the construction of godowns at Bathinda to the Markfed by the Administrator, New Mandi Township, Chandigarh by letter dated Sept. 23, 1970 and since then this land is in possession of Markfed. The ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute was denied. 3. Gurdip Singh, in order to establish his ownership and possession prima facie relied on a copy of the House Tax Assessment Order for the year 1998-99 and an electricity bill. 4. Shri Ashok Singla, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the defendants are taking up contradictory stands. They themselves are not clear as to who is in possession of the property in dispute. In the site plan Annexure R-1, the Kotha or the boundary wall allegedly constructed by them has not been shown. Similarly, in the affidavit of Shri M.S. Brar, it is pleaded that no room exists at the spot nor any electric connection existed at any point of time in any such room. The plaintiff or any other person on his behalf never lived in any such room at any point of time nor the plaintiff was in possession of any part of the Markfed land. It was, therefore, urged that the defendants never raised construction or constructed the boundary wall or a room on the land in dispute. The plaintiff or any other person on his behalf never lived in any such room at any point of time nor the plaintiff was in possession of any part of the Markfed land. It was, therefore, urged that the defendants never raised construction or constructed the boundary wall or a room on the land in dispute. Thus, the report of the Local Commissioner, appointed during the pendency of this revision petition, that there is Kotha or a room at the spot, coupled with the entry recorded in the House Tax Register and the Electricity Bill would go a long way to show that the plaintiff is in possession. 5. To meet this argument, learned counsel for the respondents contended that when the land was alloted to the Markfed for the purpose of construction of godowns, a small room was constructed for storing building material required at the spot. After the building was complete the said room was demolished. Therefore, it is immaterial that the room has not been shown in the site plan. I do find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents. In case the petitioner had, as alleged by him, constructed a Kacha-Pucca room then it must have been an old construction and not a new one, as has been observed by the Local Commissioner in his report dated December 11, 1999. His observation in this regard is as under :- "...The undersigned is of the opinion that construction of the boundary wall from points ABCD is about six months old whereas the construction of the room, comprising walls EFG and the handpump is about two months old, or may be a little more." As regards the electric connection, again the observations made by the Local Commissioner are of vital importance and the same is reproduced as under :- "....An electric meter was also installed but when it was minutely observed, it could be observed that the connection had not been given from electric pole. Rather overhead electric wires had been used and kundi connection was visible. Because there was no plaster on walls E to F and F to G on both sides and at points E to C and C to G, which has been plastered both from inside and outside, it is obvious that the room has been constructed after the construction of the boundary wall...." 6. Because there was no plaster on walls E to F and F to G on both sides and at points E to C and C to G, which has been plastered both from inside and outside, it is obvious that the room has been constructed after the construction of the boundary wall...." 6. The attendance sheet is Annexure A-1 and the site plan prepared by the Commissioner is Annexure A-2. The impugned order was passed on March 09, 1999 while the observations made by the Local Commissioner regarding the construction over the site is dated December 11, 1999, and according to him, the construction of boundary wall ABCD is about six months old and construction of the room comprising walls EFG is about two months old. Looking to the case from every possible angle, I am of the considered view that he has not been able to establish a prima facie case in his favour and the learned Additional District Judge has rightly exercised the discretion in declining the relief of injunction. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. Dismissed. My observation as above shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Revision dismissed.