Jasprit Kaur and Anr. Vs Sandeep Singh and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jasprit Kaur and Anr. Vs Sandeep Singh and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Implicit issue: whether the regular second appeal (with the connected writ petition) is maintainable in view of the civil court consent decree dated 31.3.1984 (Ex.D-21) - pressed by Learned Senior Counsel ('no merit ... not maintainable') and answered by disposal in terms of that decree.

Court's answer

Keeping in view the facts stated (including the consent decree dated 31.3.1984 (Ex.D-21) and Senior Counsel's concession of non-maintainability), the present appeal and the writ petition stand disposed of in terms of the decree dated 31.3.1984.

Ratio / Principle

Since both matters are interconnected, both are disposed of by this single common oral order.

Key takeaways

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Brief oral common disposal (07.08.2025, Nidhi Gupta J., High Court of Punjab and Haryana) of Regular Second Appeal No.1368 of 2001 (Jasprit Kaur & another v. Sandeep Singh & others) together with Civil Writ Petition No.10095 of 2016 (Prabjhkirat Singh & another v. Jagtar Singh & others) 'in terms of the decree dated 31.3.1984'. Facts recited in the order: original plaintiff No.1 Jagroop Singh had filed Civil Suit No.20 dated 14.1.1981 for possession, which ended in a consent decree dated 31.3.1984 passed on a compromise with the present defendants (Ex.D-21); the subsequent Civil Suit No.677 of 10.5.1991 (Jagroop Singh & Harpal Singh) for permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned trial Court - the plaintiff could not raise the same cause of action in a fresh suit and the previous decree dated 31.3.1984 (Ex.D-21) was in view - and the Lower Appellate Court upheld that judgment and decree dated 30.8.1997, giving rise to the second appeal by the LRs of plaintiff No.2. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 (RSA)/petitioners (CWP) conceded there was no merit, the matter being not maintainable by virtue of the civil court decree dated 31.3.1984 (Ex.D-21), and stated (on instructions) that the suit land has since changed hands many times. The appellants remained unserved and none appeared for them. No statutory provision or precedent is engaged and no reasons are recorded; pending applications stand disposed of.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below dismissing the civil suit of the plaintiffs (who before this Court are the LRs of the original plaintiff No.2) for permanent injunction - specifically the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1997 of the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.677 of 10.5.1991, upheld by the Lower Appellate Court - challenged through Regular Second Appeal No.1368 of 2001.¶26
Learned trial Court (upheld by the Lower Appellate Court) · 30.8.1997
Prior proceeding
Original plaintiff No.1 Jagroop Singh filed Civil Suit No.20 dated 14.1.1981 (Annexure P-1 with the writ petition) against the predecessor-ininterest/father of the present respondents/defendants, seeking possession of the suit land.¶27
Prior proceeding
In that suit, a consent decree dated 31.3.1984 was passed as the matter stood compromised between Jagroop Singh and the present defendants (later referred to as Ex.D-21).¶27
Prior proceeding
Thereafter, Civil Suit No.677 of 10.5.1991 was filed by plaintiff Jagroop Singh and Harpal Singh for permanent injunction over the same land.¶27
Prior proceeding
The learned trial Court dismissed Civil Suit No.677 of 10.5.1991, keeping in view that the plaintiff could not raise the same cause of action in a fresh suit, and in view of the previous decree dated 31.3.1984 (Ex.D-21).¶30
Prior proceeding
The learned Lower Appellate Court upheld the trial Court's judgment and decree dated 30.8.1997; hence the present regular second appeal.¶30
Prior proceeding
On instructions, Learned Senior Counsel stated that the suit land has since changed hands many times over with the passage of time.¶32
Prior proceeding
Service upon respondents Nos.3 to 10 in RSA-1368-2001 was dispensed with vide order dated 20.08.2001.¶21
Prior proceeding
On the last date of hearing (08.4.2025) fresh notices were issued to the appellants and respondent No.1 in RSA-1368-2001; per the office report the appellants remained unserved as complete address particulars were unavailable despite direction to effect service through the SHO concerned.¶26