Dismissed

Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. Sham Sunder

Punjab & Haryana HC5 May 2011RSA/3231/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an appeal against a judgment dismissing a suit for permanent injunction regarding a disputed vacant site, the High Court held that the appeal fails as the lower courts correctly found the site was not a public street, making no substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

Appellants' appeal against the dismissal of their suit for permanent injunction was dismissed.

Gurcharan Singh and Ors. Vs Sham Sunder — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

RSA No.3231 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

RSA No.3231 of 2010 (O&M)). Decided on: May 05, 2011.

¶4

Gurcharan Singh and others .

.. Appellants

VERSUS

Sham Sunder.

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

¶11

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

Whether to be referred to the Reporter?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

PRESENT Mr.Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶16

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶17

CM No.9481-C of 2010

¶18

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay

¶19

of 12 days in filing of the appeal is condoned.

¶20

Misc. application stands disposed of.

¶21

. . . 1

¶22

RSA No.3231 of 2010 (O&M)

¶23

RSA No.3231 of 2010

¶24

Suit of the plaintiffs-appellants for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent to restrain him from interfering in the user of the property marked ABCD, mentioned in the heading of the plaint stands dismissed by the Courts below holding that the plaintiffs-appellants, have not been able to establish that the property in dispute is a public street.

¶25

It has been found as a fact that it is a vacant site bearing Khasra No.56//10. In view of the concurrent finding of fact that the site in dispute is not established to be a public passage or a private passage, no ground is made out for interference.

¶26

Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the report of Local Commissioner EX.P2, has been ignored by the Courts below, though no objection was filed.

¶27

I have considered the said contention and gone through the judgment of the Courts below. Both the Courts have considered the said report of Local Commissioner which arrived at a conclusion that there is no public street at the spot and that it is a vacant site.

¶28

No substantial question of law is involved.

¶29

Dismissed.

¶30

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE

¶31

May 05, 2011. rka

¶32

. . . 2

Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. Sham Sunder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. Sham Sunder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Singh Vs M/S Pritam Singh Iqbal Singh

Amrik Singh Vs Nasib Singh

Ramesh Kumar Vs Paramjit Singh & Anr.

Pardeep Singla Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Brij Mohini Sharma Vs Sharda Sharma & Ors.