GURDEEP SINGH Vs. K.K. DIKSHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURDIP Singh-petitioner dissatisfied with the order dated March 9, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda has preferred this revision as his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed after setting aside the Order passed by the trial Court in his favour.

(2.) GURDIP Singh - plaintiff claiming his possession and ownership over the property in dispute whereby the boundary wall and Kacha Pucca kotha have been raised filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Shri K.K. Dikshit, District Manager, Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (for short 'Markfed') from interfering in his possession. The contesting defendants raised preliminary objection that the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the defendants. Shri K.K. Dikshit has been impleaded in his individual capacity. The property in question measuring 1 acre; a kanal and 11 marlas i.e. 5768 square yards was allotted for the construction of godowns at Bathinda to the Markfed by the Administrator, New Mandi Township, Chandigarh by letter dated Sept. 23, 1970 and since then this land is in possession of Markfed. The ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute was denied.

(3.) SHRI Ashok Singla, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the defendants are taking up contradictory stands. They themselves are not clear as to who is in possession of the property in dispute. In the site plan Annexure R-1, the Kotha or the boundary wall allegedly constructed by them has not been shown. Similarly, in the affidavit of Shri M.S. Brar, it is pleaded that no room exists at the spot nor any electric connection existed at any point of time in any such room. The plaintiff or any other person on his behalf never lived in any such room at any point of time nor the plaintiff was in possession of any part of the Markfed land. It was, therefore, urged that the defendants never raised construction or constructed the boundary wall or a room on the land in dispute. Thus, the report of the Local Commissioner, appointed during the pendency of this revision petition, that there is Kotha or a room at the spot, coupled with the entry recorded in the House Tax Register and the Electricity Bill would go a long way to show that the plaintiff is in possession.