Darbara Sing Singh v. Dara Singh
Case Details
RSA-2734-2025 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR GARH(cid:1) 125 (cid:1) Dara Singh and o and others RSA-2734 Date of De 34-2025 (O&M) e of Decision:12.08.2025 ... Appellants Darbara Singh an and others ... Respondents Versus (cid:1) CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR MARINDER SINGH GREWAL vocate Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate Present: Mr. for the appellants. for t *** *** (cid:1) AMARINDER S RAL) DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The defendants are the appellants The llants before this Court challenging t ging the judgment and de nd decree dated 24.01.2018 passed by ssed by the learned trial Court decreei ecreeing the suit for posse possession filed by the respondents
Facts
dents-plaintiffs and the judgment dat nt dated 15.07.2025 pass passed by the learned 1st Appella ppellate Court vide which the appe e appeal preferred by them y them against the aforesaid judgmen gment and decree passed by the learn e learned trial Court, has b , has been dismissed. 2. In brief, the facts are that the pl In b the plaintiffs being owner of the la the land comprised in Kh in Khasra/Khatauni No. 233/246, Kh 6, Khasra No.139 (2-1) had filed a s ed a suit for permanent in ent injunction titled as "Darbara Sing Singh Vs. Dara Singh" restraining t ining the defendants from from encroaching upon the suit prope t property when they encroached upon upon a portion of suit pr suit property. It is submitted that a loc t a local commissioner was appointed inted by the learned trial rial Court for demarcation of the f the suit property, who submitted h itted his report concludin cluding that defendants had encroach croached upon the area i.e. 6 marlas arlas of land of the plaint plaintiffs, as detailed in the head note d note of the plaint. After the said rep id report of local commi ommissioner, plaintiffs, number of er of times requested the defendan fendants PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2734-2025 2025 (O&M) -2- to vacate the suit he suit property, but the defendants fla nts flatly refused to do so. It is submitt ubmitted that the suit wa it was partially decreed by the Court Court of Sh. H.S. Bajwa, CJ(JD), SA D), SAS Nagar on 6.8.20 6.8.2013 to the extent of portion of on of Kh. No.139(2-1) in possession ession of plaintiffs and the nd the suit was dismissed against the st the portion Kh. No.139(2-1) which which is in possession of ion of defendants and road. The plaint plaintiff requested the defendants ma many times not to proc o proceed with illegal acts and designs esigns, but they are not paying any he any heed to the request of est of the plaintiff. Hence, the presen present suit was filed for possession ession of portion of Kh.No Kh.No.139(2-1) land i.e. 6 marlas boun as bounded as under:- East: 8 gathas adjoining road. “Ea West: 10 gathas adjoining defendan Wes dant. North: 8 gathas adjoining Naib Sing Nor Singh son of Lachman Singh. South: 6 gathas adjoining Sucha Sin Sout a Singh encroached by the defendants encr ts comprised in the land Kh/K h/Kh. No.233/246, Kh. No.139(2-1) as dem No.2 s demarcated by local commissioner oner in case titled as “Darbara Singh Vs. case Vs. Dara Singh” situated within t hin the revenue limits of village Sekhan Ma reve Majra H.B. No.Tehsil & District S ict SAS Nagar and for permanent injunctio Nag nction restraining the defendants fro ts from raising construction over the suit pr rais it property.” 3. Upon noti n notice of the suit, defendants appea appeared through their counsel and fil and filed written statement tement taking preliminary objections t tions that suit is hopelessly time barre e barred; suit is barred und ed under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. On me
Legal Reasoning
ench of this Court in Dalbir Singh V gh Vs. Ram Singh in RS in RSA No.5518 of 2014 decided on on 01.06.2018. 6. Having heard learned counsel for th Hav for the appellants-defendants, this Co his Court finds no force in orce in the arguments advanced by le by learned counsel for the appellan pellants. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2734-2025 2025 (O&M) -4- Admittedly, the p , the present respondent No.1-Darbara arbara Singh had instituted earlier a s ier a suit for permanent inj ent injunction against the present appe t appellant No.1-Dara Singh, restraini straining him from encroa ncroaching upon the suit property wh rty when they tried to encroach upon t upon the area of the plain plaintiff therein. In the said earlier earlier suit, Tehsildar was appointed ointed as local commission issioner, who submitted his report as ort as Ex.P2 stating therein that 6 mar 6 marlas of land of the pla the plaintiff-Darbara Singh has been e been encroached upon by the defenda fendant- Dara Singh. Adm dmittedly, parties in the earlier s rlier suit and the present suit are sam re same. The report of the of the local commissioner Ex.P2, wh 2, which was proved in the earlier su rlier suit, was never chall challenged; nor any party, went in ent in appeal against the said repo d report. Though much hu uch hue and cry has been raised by the by the learned counsel for the appellan ppellants that heavy duty w duty was casted upon the present resp nt respondents to examine the Tehsild ehsildar, who had earlier p arlier prepared the report Ex.P2 before before the learned trial Court, this Co his Court is of the opinion inion that when in the earlier institute stituted suit for permanent injunction ction by present responde pondent No.1-Darbara Singh, local c local commissioner was appointed, w ted, who submitted his rep his report as Ex.P2 holding that presen present appellants had encroached up hed upon 6 marlas of land f land of the respondents, there is n is no need to examine the said loc aid local commissioner in ner in the present suit. Even in the n the judgment passed by this Court Court in Dalbir Singh’s c h’s case (supra), which has been reli en relied upon by learned counsel for t el for the appellants, it is h it is held that report of the local com al commissioner appointed by a court court to inspect a propert roperty shall form part of the record record and it is not necessary that su that such report should be uld be marked or exhibited and it and it is not even necessary that the commissioner un ner under all circumstances should be uld be examined. But in case, any of t ny of the parties does not a s not accept the correctness of the rep he report of the local commissioner th ner then it is open to such o such party to file objections to the sa the same. However, in the case in han in hand, appellants never never filed any objections to the repo e report of the local commissioner. T ner. The PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2734-2025 2025 (O&M) -5- report of local c local commissioner Ex.P2 has been been proved before the learned Cou d Courts below by the resp he respondents-plaintiffs. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and c In v and circumstances, this Court does n does not find any merit in erit in the arguments raised by learned earned counsel for the parties, much le uch less, no substantial q ntial question of law arises for co for consideration. Consequently, t ntly, the concurrent findin finding rendered by both the Courts Courts below is upheld and the insta e instant regular second ap ond appeal is dismissed. 8. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, Misc
Arguments
On merits, it was submitted that Mark t Market Committee got got constructed the road after p fter passing the resolution by Gra y Gram Panchayat in the in the year 1972 and the plaintiffs or r their predecessors did not raise a raise any type of objection jection at the time of paving/constructi struction of the road. The plaintiffs fil tiffs filed a civil suit No.13 o.13/1.7.2013 dated 3.3.2009 and t and the same has been decided by t d by the Court of Sh. H.S h. H.S. Bajwa, PCS, CJ(JD), Mohali a hali and at the time of filing of that su that suit, the road already lready existed since the year 1972 a 972 and across the road, there exist e existed construction of d n of defendant No.1. It was submitted tted that they should have sought t ught the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2734-2025 2025 (O&M) -3- relief of possess ossession at the time of filing prev g previous suit as the road as well well as construction was n was already there. It was also su lso submitted the demarcation was n was not carried out correc correctly by the local commissioner so oner so appointed. 4. On the basis of pleadings, learned t On t rned trial Court had framed as many many as five issues inclu including relief. On appreciation iation of oral as well as documenta mentary evidence produce roduced before it, the learned trial Cou ial Court decreed the suit of the plainti plaintiffs and the appeal p peal preferred by the defendants was ts was also dismissed by the learned arned 1st Appellate Court Court. Hence, the regular second appe d appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants Lear ellants-defendants submits that both t both the Courts below hav ow have heavily relied upon the repor report of the local commissioner Ex. er Ex.P2 while deciding th ding the suit as well as the appeal. I eal. In fact, the said report Ex.P2 w x.P2 was prepared and sub nd submitted in previous round of li d of litigation i.e. a simplicitor suit f suit for injunction titled titled as Darbara Singh Vs. Dara Sin Singh. It is further submitted that d that in fact, the learned C arned Courts below have overlooked th oked the fact that report submitted by t ed by the local commission issioner in the previous suit was not as not prepared as per the guidelines lines and rules framed by t ed by the High Court. In fact, respond espondents-plaintiffs never examined t ined the Tehsildar, who p who prepared the report Ex.P2 in the in the previously instituted suit. Neith Neither the Tehsildar nor ar nor the Kanungo have been examin examined in the present suit to prove t rove the local commission issioner’s report and as such, learne learned Courts below should not ha not have relied upon the r n the report of the local commissione ssioner, Ex.P2 and passed the decree decree in favour of the resp he respondents-plaintiffs. On this poi is point, attention of this Court is draw is drawn to the judgment ment passed by a Coordinate Bench
Decision
if any, also stand disposed of. , 2025 August 12, 2025 Pankaj* ned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No AMARINDER SINGH GREWA (AM JUDGE EWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.13 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh