Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 259 (PNJ)

Dalip Singh v. Executive Officer, M. C.

2000-03-02

R.L.ANAND

body2000
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. Unsuccessful plaintiff Dalip Singh has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.9.1999 passed by the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, who after affirming the judgment and decree dated 3.9.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Dalip Singh plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur restraining the defendant from blocking the street 20 wide situated towards the eastern side of his house which has been shown by letters ABCD in the site plan attached with the suit on the grounds that the defendant-Committee has threatened to block the street in dispute. He issued a notice to the Committee on 21.4.1994 not to block the said street, but the Committee did not desist. According to the plaintiff, he had purchased the site of the house which has been shown as open space towards the east of his house and the Punjab State Electricity Board had installed two transformers in the street in dispute. The suit was contested by the Committee on the ground that there was a park on the east of the house of the plaintiff which is being renovated by constructing a boundary wall around it. The plaintiff was already having an approach to his house towards the north measuring 20 wide. Thee was a passage of 5 width on the eastern side of the house of the plaintiff and he was having an easy access to his house. The passage of 5 is already existing towards the east of the house of the plaintiff. With above defence, the Committee has prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 3. The trial Court framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the injunction prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the suit? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by his act and conduct? OPD 4. Relief. 4. The evidence was led by the parties and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. The first appeal of the plaintiff was also dismissed. In this manner, this regular second appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by his act and conduct? OPD 4. Relief. 4. The evidence was led by the parties and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. The first appeal of the plaintiff was also dismissed. In this manner, this regular second appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. Inderjit Malhotra, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and with his assistance have gone through the record of this case. 6. It is basic principle of law that parties are bound by their pleadings. The case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that there was a street of 20 width on the eastern side of his house. It was never the case of the plaintiff that he had constructed three shops on the plot in question. Also it was not the case of the plaintiff that the plot in question was a commercial one. It is for the plaintiff, in these circumstances, to establish that there was a street of 20 in width on the eastern side of his plot. 7. During the course of submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff relied upon a site plan shown to me, which shows that on the eastern side of the plot in question there is a chowk measuring 60 x 116 of the Municipal Committee. No street has been shown on the eastern side. On the northern side of the plot 20 passage has been shown. Meaning thereby that there is an ample access to the plot of the plaintiff from the northern side. When the plot in question was purchased by the plaintiff, no street has been indicated on the eastern side. Rather a chowk has been shown. Meaning thereby that this chowk was the ownership of the Municipal Committee. In these circumstances, the Committee has the right to develop this chowk in the shape of a park. The Committee has left a passage of 5 on the eastern side for the benefit of the owners of plot Nos. 25 and 26. It may be mentioned here that plot No. 25 belongs to the plaintiff as per the site plan. Thus, it cannot be said that the defendant-committee is curtailing any vested right of enjoyment of the plaintiff on the eastern side of his plot. 8. 25 and 26. It may be mentioned here that plot No. 25 belongs to the plaintiff as per the site plan. Thus, it cannot be said that the defendant-committee is curtailing any vested right of enjoyment of the plaintiff on the eastern side of his plot. 8. In this view of the matter, both the Courts below have rightly decided the issues against the plaintiff. I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.