In a regular second appeal seeking permanent injunction against Gram Panchayat's interference with possession, the Court held that a subsequent suit is not maintainable on the same cause of action. Violation of injunction remedies lie elsewhere. Appeal dismissed.
The appeal was dismissed with no substantial question of law arising for consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R.S.A. No. 2659 of 2007 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 2659 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.1.2009
Sukhdev Singh
....Appellant
Versus
Gram Panchayat, Kaleke
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate, for the appellant.
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No. 7438-C of 2007
This is an application for condoning the delay of 10 days in refiling the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed and the delay of 10 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
R.S.A. No. 2659 of 2007
This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 2.3.2006 and 15.1.2007 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant seeking permanent injunction against Gram Panchayat from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff has been ordered to be dismissed.
It is the case of the plaintiff that on earlier occasion, he had filed a suit for injunction, which was decreed and the Gram Panchayat was restrained from interfering in the possession of the appellant except with
R.S.A. No. 2659 of 2007 (O&M)
-2-
due process of law.
The learned trial Court dismissed the second suit filed by the plaintiff by holding it to be not maintainable in view of the previous suit having been filed on same cause of action.
The appeal also stands dismissed.
The learned counsel for the appellant contends that plaintiff being in possession was also entitled to maintain the second suit for injunction. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in spite of injunction order, the Gram Panchayat interfered in the possession of plaintiff, therefore, second suit.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The remedy for violating injunction lies somewhere else and not by filing the subsequent suits.
The learned Courts were right in dismissing the suit.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in the regular second appeal.
Dismissed.
(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge
January 13, 2009 R.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second suit for injunction is maintainable when a previous suit on the same cause of action was already decided.
Whether the remedy for violating an injunction order lies in filing a subsequent suit.
Sukhdev Singh
Gram Panchayat, Kaleke
Vinod K. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
