In a second appeal regarding a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that no substantial question of law arises, dismissing the appeal by following a prior judgment in a similar set of matters.
The instant appeal (RSA No.2985 of 2002) was dismissed.
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.
C.M.No.4962-C of 2010 and RSA No.2985 of 2002
1
IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.
C.M.No.4962-C of 2010 and RSA No.2985 of 2002 Date of decision:13.9.2010.
Amritsar Improvement Trust and another
...Appellants
vs
Harbhajan Singh
....Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG.
Present: Mr.A.R.Takkar, Advocate, for the non applicantappellants.
Mr.K.S.Bassi, Advocate, for the applicant-respondent.
Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral)
This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from allotting the plot as detailed in the plaint to the plaintiff-respondent, and for mandatory injunction directing the appellants to execute the sale deed of the said plot in their favour was decreed and the appellants were restrained not to allot the said plot to any other person
While admitting this appeal vide order dated 28.8.2003, the following substantial question of law was framed for consideration of this Court:-
C.M.No.4962-C of 2010 and RSA No.2985 of 2002
2
1.Whether any right accrued in favour of the plaintiff on account of the reservation of the plot even when allotment letter is not issued “
Vide instant application it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the present appeal is covered by a decision of this Court in
Amritsar Improvement Trust v. Dr.Kulwant Singh, RSA No.3738 of 1997 decided on 20.2.21998 , vide which six Regular Second Appeals were decided in favour of the allottees and against the Improvement Trust. It has been further submitted in this application that the applicant-respondent is also similarly situated person under the same scheme and all those similarly situated persons whose appeals have been decided as aforesaid have been given alternate plots in the same scheme, however, the plaintiff-respondent is being deprived of his right because of the pendency of the present appeal. It is further submitted that S.L.P(C)...CC 7880 of 1998, was also filed against the aforesaid judgment which has already been dismissed.
Thus it is prayed that this appeal be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment of this Court dated 20.2.1998 passed in RSA No.3738 of 1997 and in other connected matters.
Notice of this application was given to the appellant-Trust and reply has been filed by way of affidavit of Gurnam Singh, Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Amritsar, wherein it has been admitted that the present appeal is similar to the earlier appeals decided by this Court vide judgment dated 20.2.1998 in RSA No.3738 of 1997.
In aforesaid view of the matter, this application is allowed and the instant appeal i.e. RSA No.2985 of 2002, is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid judgment holding that no substantial question of law arises for
C.M.No.4962-C of 2010 and RSA No.2985 of 2002 3
( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge
consideration of this Court.
September 13, 2010 rk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arises regarding the accrual of rights when an allotment letter is not issued.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amritsar Improvement Trust v. Dr.Kulwant SinghFollowed¶19
RSA No.3738 of 1997 decided on 20.2.1998
Amritsar Improvement Trust and another
Harbhajan Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
