SUDHA RAM Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is unsuccessful plaintiff's Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) Plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from interfering or causing interference in any manner in his peaceful possession over a room situated on the first floor of property No. BV-2059 at Malout, as detailed and described in the heading of the plaint. As per the averments made in the plaint, it is stated that plaintiff was a tenant in possession of the property in dispute at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month since long and was carrying on the business of Shiv Band at Malout. The defendant has no concern with the possession of the disputed premises. It is only three days back that the defendant tried to oust the plaintiff forcibly, hence, filing of the present suit.

(3.) The defendant put in appearance, raised preliminary objections to the effect that the suit is barred under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the previous suit had been withdrawn without permission from the Court. Defendant further alleged that plaintiff was not the proprietor of alleged Shiv Band and, thus, had no cause of action to file the present suit. The defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. On merits the claim of the plaintiff was refuted.