The High Court dismissed an appeal against a decree granting permanent injunction against demolition of a gate. The court held that the lower courts did not misread evidence, thus leaving no ground for interference under Section 100 CPC.
The appeal and application for stay were dismissed with no costs.
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.
RSA No. 1483 of 2009(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CM No. 4414-C of 2009 and RSA No. 1483 of 2009(O&M)
Date of Decision: January 13 , 2010
Kirpal Singh and another
...... Appellants
Versus
Virender Singh
...... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.B.S.Saroha, Advocate for the appellants.
Ajay Tewari, J.
CM No. 4414-C of 2009
For the reasons recorded, delay of 323 days in refiling the
present appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
RSA No. 1483 of 2009(O&M)
This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from encroaching upon any portion of
the street by demolishing the existing gate and installing a new gate.
RSA No. 1483 of 2009(O&M)
2
The following questions have been proposed:-
The main questions are questions No. 2 and 3 which are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of both the Courts recorded thereon but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Once questions No. 2 and 3 are answered against the appellants, question No.1 loses all importance.
Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are
dismissed. No costs.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE
January 13 , 2010 sunita
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings of the courts below warranted interference under Section 100 CPC for misreading evidence?
Whether the Gram Panchayat and Municipal Committee were necessary parties in the suit regarding public street land?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kirpal Singh and another
Virender Singh
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
