In suit for possession, it is necessary to produce documentary evidence to establish necessary ingredients for issuance of injunction: P&H HC

Read Order: Gulzar Singh and Another v. Manga Singh and Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 11, 2022: While dealing with a review petition impugning the order of the Court of first instance and the first appellate Court, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that since petitioners/plaintiffs came forth to seek relief from the Court in suit for possession and for issuance of injunction order against the defendant, it was required on their part, to establish necessary ingredients for issuance of injunction in their favour. 

While dismissing the revision petition , the Bench of Justice Archana Puri, observed that the petitioners/ plaintiffs furnished no  document as such to establish their ownership or possession, at any stage, despite constantly asserting to be in possession of the suit property for the last more than 37 years.

In this case, a suit was filed by the plaintiffs (petitioners) seeking mandatory injunction against the defendants thereby directing them to remove the walls and restraining them from raising further construction in the disputed site. A suit for possession to deliver the vacant possession of the site concerned was also filed.

Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed and the same was dismissed by an order of Civil Judge (Junior Division.). An appeal was then filed to challenge the aforesaid order but this was also dismissed by  Addl. District Judge. Hence, this revision petition was filed before the High Court.

The petitioners claimed to be in possession of the suit property for the last 37 years. They further claimed to have constructed a Kacha house on the site in dispute, which fell due to heavy rain and as a result they started residing in another house. It was also submitted that the defendants, with the help of the police, took possession of the site in dispute and raised the boundary wall around three sides illegally and unlawfully, which was prayed to be removed.

On the contrary, the contesting defendant refuted the claim of the petitioners/plaintiffs and denied the ownership in possession of the plaintiffs. The first defendant asserted to be the owner in possession of the suit property and claimed that the property came to him, on the basis of the Will of his father. He also claimed that the electricity and water connections were already installed in the suit property in his name and that he was regularly paying the electricity and water bills.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court stated that though the plaintiffs claimed to be the owners in possession of the suit property for the last 37 years, yet they did not produce even a single document on record to substantiate the plea of ownership or possession. 

“In fact, there is no mention made as to when Kacha house was built and when it had fallen down. In fact, the petitioners/plaintiffs now admit possession of the defendants over the suit property. There was an earlier civil suit filed by defendants against Parkash Ram and others and the site plan as filed along with the suit, which was decided in favour of the defendants tallied with the boundaries of the site plan as annexed with the suit in hand”, said the Bench. 

The Court further observed that the Courts below rightly decided the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC as well as the appeal against the present petitioners. Thus, the Revision petition was dismissed.