Shamsher Singh Vs Harbhajan Singh and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shamsher Singh Vs Harbhajan Singh and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal allowed; judgments and decrees of both Courts below set aside; decree of permanent injunction granted restraining defendants-respondents from interfering in the plaintiff-appellant's possession over the suit land.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal deserved to be allowed, given that the plaintiff's possession was reflected in the revenue record and his case was disbelieved by the courts below solely because of orders Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, which have since been set aside.

Court's answer

Since the plaintiff's possession stood reflected in the revenue record and his case was disbelieved only because of orders Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, which have already been set aside, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are set aside.

Ratio / Principle

A decree of permanent injunction is passed restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-appellant over the suit land.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RSA-3020-2000 (O&M), decided orally by Justice Deepak Gupta on 02.07.2025: The plaintiff-appellant's suit for permanent injunction had been dismissed by the trial Court on 20.01.1997 and the dismissal affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 29.02.2000, solely because orders Ex.D1 (04.04.1996) and Ex.D2 (21.09.1995) of the Assistant Collector showed the plaintiff not in possession at the spot even though the revenue record reflected his possession. Those very orders were subsequently set aside by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala on 14.06.1999 (Annexure P-1), produced via application CM-2364-C-2001 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, and the case was remanded to Assistant Collector II nd Grade, Nurpur Bedi; counsel could not disclose whether any fresh order followed the remand. Finding that the sole foundation of the concurrent findings had collapsed, the High Court set aside the judgments and decrees of both Courts below and decreed permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering with the plaintiff-appellant's possession over the suit land.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

205

RSA-3020-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.07.2025

SHAMSHER SINGH

…..APPELLANT

Vs.

HARBHAJAN SINGH AND ORS.

…..RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present: Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Jasdeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Y.S. Saini, Advocate for the respondents.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Suit for permanent injunc�on was filed by the palin�ff (now appellant represented through his LRs) in respect of suit land detailed in para No.1 in the plaint on the ground that plain�ff was owner in possession of suit land and defendants were interfering in his possession. It was found by the trial Court that though the revenue record reflected the suit land to be in the possession of the plain�ff, but by way of the order dated 04.04.1996 Ex.D1 and order dated 21.09.1995 Ex.D2, the plain�ff was not found to be in possession at the spot. Based upon these orders Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Anandpur Sahib, suit of the plain�ff was dismissed by the trial Court on 20.01.1997 and the findings were affirmed by the First Appellate Court by dismissing the appeal of the plain�ff-appellant on 29.02.2000.

While assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings by way of present Regular Second Appeal, the appellant also moved an applica�on bearing CM-2364-C-2001 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to place on record documents Annexures P-1 to P-4 by way of addi�onal evidence.

PRIYANKA 2025.07.03 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-3020-2000 (O&M)

-2-

The conten�on of learned counsel is that the orders Ex. D1 and D2, which were the basis for the trial Court and Appellate Court to dismiss the suit of the plain�ff, were set aside by Addi�onal Commissioner (Appeals), Pa�ala Division, Pa�ala on 14.06.1999 (Annexure P-1).

The perusal of the order dated 14.06.1999 (Annexure P-1) would reveal that the orders dated 21.09.1995 and 04.04.1996 of Assistant Collector II^nd Grade (produced before the trial Court as Ex. D1 and D2) were set aside and the case was remanded back to Assistant Collector II^nd Grade Nurpur Bedi for deciding the case afresh a�er giving opportunity to both the par�es to give evidence.

None of the counsel for par�es is able to disclose as to whether any fresh order was passed by the Assistant Collector II^nd Grade pursuant to the order dated 14.06.1999 (Annexure P-1).

Thus, the posi�on in hand is that plain�ff’s possession was reflected in the revenue record. His case was disbelieved only because of orders Ex.D1 and D2. Those orders Ex. D1 and D2 have already been set aside. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are hereby set aside. A decree of permanent injunc�on is passed whereby defendants-respondents are restrained from interfering in the possession of the plain�ff-appellant over the suit land.

		( DEEPAK GUPTA )
02.07.2025		JUDGE
pry
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

PRIYANKA 2025.07.03 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document