DEEP CHAND Vs. DHARAMVIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decree for permanent injunction was passed in favour of the decree holder restraining the defendant in the suit from interfering in the peaceful possession of the decree holder. The petitioner filed objections to state that he is in possession of the property and his possession should not be disturbed. He further pleaded that land is shamlat deh and part of municipal committee.

(2.) THE factum of possession would have been ascertained by the Trial Court in the suit proceedings and passing of the decree in favour of the decree holder would indicate that a finding of possession would necessarily have been recorded in his favour and upheld by the Appellate Court. If the petitioner asserts his right that he is in possession then evidently in the wake of any attempted encroachment or interference in his right he has a civil remedy. In so far as decree of permanent injunction is concerned it only suggests that the possession of the plaintiff in the suit i.e. decree holder would not be disturbed by the said defendant. Evidently the petitioner cannot assert a better right of possession than the decree holder, more particularly, when the Civil Court has recorded a finding in this regard which has been upheld by the Appellate Court. Therefore, objections have been rightly dismissed. Hence, the instant petition is held to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the petitioner to his remedies in law.