High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging lower courts' injunctions restraining the petitioner from encroaching on a passage designated as a thoroughfare in a 1997 compromise agreement.
Revision petition dismissed; no illegality or infirmity found in impugned orders.
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.
CR No.6106 of 2016 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.6106 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.12.2016
Jasvir Singh
....Petitioner
V/S
Sanjeev Singh
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH
Present: Mr.Narinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jagmeet Singh Moudgill, Advocate for the respondent.
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 1.8.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala (Annexure P-1) and the order dated 17.5.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division) Rajpura whereby the defendant-petitioner has been restrained from interfering in the use of the common passage/street and also from encroaching upon or blocking/creating any hindrance over the said common passage/street till the decision of the suit.
Pushpinder SainiRajpura, Distt. Patiala. 2016.12.13 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR No.6106 of 2016 (O&M)
2
Pushpinder Saini2016.12.13 11:428. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiffI attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR No.6106 of 2016 (O&M)
3
respondent was not a party to RSA No.1324/1982. The compromise in that regular second appeal has only taken place between the party to the litigation. Only party to that litigation were allowed to use the passage. He contended that in para No.3 of the compromise dated 21.2.1997, it has been categorically mentioned that Net Ram, the grandfather of the petitioner, was given the separate passage shown with letters EFGH. So, the passage in question is separate and exclusive passage of the petitioner-defendant left to his elders. It is not a public passage and the plaintiff-respondent has no right therein. He contended that due to some mistake, the thoroughfare has been mentioned in the compromise. In fact, the compromise was only between Mansha Singh and others and Net Ram. Thus, he contended that the learned Courts below have wrongly granted the injunction.
same.
between Mansha Singh and others and Net Ram, the grandfather of the present petitioner. The said litigation went up to this Court by way of Regular Second Appeal No.1324 of 1982. It is also not disputed that in the said regular second
appeal, the compromise has taken place between the parties and the written compromise dated 21.2.1997 was produced before this Court. In para No.5 of the
said compromise, this fact has been categorically mentioned that the passage Pushpinder Saini 2016.12.13 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR No.6106 of 2016 (O&M)
4
shown with letters EFGH will be a thoroughfare. There is no substance in the
plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this passage was only left
between the parties to RSA No.1324 of 1982, if that would have been so, the said passage should have been described as common passage of the parties instead of thoroughfare. The petitioner being the legal heir/descendant of Net Ram, party to RSA No.1324 of 1982, is prima facie bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise dated 21.2.1997, so, he cannot contend that the passage in dispute is a private/exclusive passage. The passage in question being thoroughfare as per the compromise dated 21.2.1997, the petitioner-defendant cannot obstruct the use thereof by the plaintiff-respondent nor he can make any encroachment, hindrance or obstruction in the said passage.
passed by the learned Courts below.
is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that nothing expressed herein shall
be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
| December 07, 2016 | ( DARSHAN SINGH ) |
|---|---|
| ps | JUDGE |
| Whether speaking/reasoned | : Yes/No. |
| Whether reportable | : Yes/No. |
Pushpinder Saini 2016.12.13 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders restraining the petitioner from encroaching on a common passage suffered any illegality or infirmity in light of the compromise agreement.
Whether the petitioner, as a legal heir, is bound by the compromise terms designating the disputed passage as a thoroughfare.
Jasvir Singh
Sanjeev Singh
Darshan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
