Dismissed¶18

Manohar Lal v. Veena Rani and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2025CR/1001/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CR No. 1001 of 2025 (O&M), decided 17.02.2025 by Vikram Aggarwal, J (oral): revision against dismissal of plaintiff's application seeking direction to defendant to permit plaintiff/building expert to measure defendant's plot; held onus of proof lies on plaintiff and cannot be shifted via Court process; no jurisdictional error warranting revisional interference; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

It is the plaintiff who filed the suit for permanent injunction, and it is upon him to prove his case by leading cogent evidence. ¶17

Manohar Lal Vs Veena Rani and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

(125) CR No. 1001 of 2025 (O&M). Date of Decision: 17.02.2025

¶3

Manohar Lal Nagpal …Petitioner Vs

¶4

Veena Rani and another …Respondents

¶5

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

¶6

Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

¶8

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

¶9

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Hisar, vide which the application filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondent-defendant No.1 to allow the petitioner-plaintiff and the building expert to take measurement of the plot of respondent No.1/defendant was dismissed.

¶10

The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a suit for permanent injunction (prohibitory and mandatory) was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (Manohar Lal Nagpal) seeking a restraint upon respondent/defendant No.1 (Veena Rani) from raising any construction and from damaging the common wall on which the house of the petitionerplaintiff is built. Injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation, Hisar, not to sanction the building plan was also sought. During the pendency of the suit, an application (Annexure P-3) was moved by the petitioner seeking the aforementioned direction. The application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-4). However, by way of the impugned order, the said application was dismissed leading to filing of the present revision petition.

¶11

REKHA SHARMA 2025.02.20 04:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

¶12

CR No. 1001 of 2025 (O&M)

¶13

-2-

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old person and is-fact willing to settle the matter with the respondents. He only apprehends that on account of the construction raised by respondentdefendant No. 1, damage may be caused to his house. He submits that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application and no prejudice would have been caused to respondent No.1 if the petitioner and his expert were permitted to take measurement of the property of respondent No. 1.

¶16

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but found the same to be devoid of merit.

¶17

It is the plaintiff who filed the suit for permanent injunction and it would be upon him to prove his case by leading cogent evidence. No occasion would arise to permit the petitioner and his expert to enter into the property of defendant No.1 to take its measurement. The trial Court rightly observed that the petitioner-plaintiff could get his own plot measured and lead evidence accordingly. The onus to prove his contentions would be on the petitioner and the same cannot be shifted upon the respondents by invoking the process of the Court. I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

¶18

In view of the above, the present revision petition is dismissed.

¶19

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE

¶20

February Rekha	17, 2025
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶21

REKHA SHARMA 2025.02.20 04:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

Manohar Lal v. Veena Rani and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Lal v. Veena Rani and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Parkash Vs Kali Charan

Punajb State Elect. Bd. Vs Gurdial Singh

Tejwant Son of Shri Puran Chand Vs Ishwar Singh Son of Het Ram

Mohd. Sarwar Alias Sabbu Vs Naseer Ahmed and Ors.

Dhani Ram Vs Phool Singh and Ors.

Usha Berry Vs T S Duggal and Ors.