ONKAR SINGH Vs. KAPUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit of the plaintiff-respondents having been decreed and the appeal of the appellant having been dismissed by the lower appellate court, they have come up in second appeal in this Court. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendant-appellants for the removal of an encroachment and the construction made by them on a 3-karam wide passage shown in the plan in village Chhokar, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. It was claimed that the 3-karam wide passage abutted on the house of the plaintiff as also those of other residents of the village. It was being used for ingress and egress by the residents of the village. The defendant-appellants had raised construction of a house inspite of the protest made by the plaintiffs and other villagers in June, 1986. On this basis, the prayer for the passing of a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the construction and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-appellants from raising any construction on the said passage was made. The trial Court framed the following issues :

(3.) I have heard Mr. G. S. Grewal for the appellants and Mr. Sumeet Mahajan for the plaintiff respondents. The only point urged by Mr. Grewal is that the plaintiff-respondents had not complied with the provisions of section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure inspite of the fact that they had complained that the appellant had created a public nuisance. The claim made on behalf of the appellant has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.