Judgment:
Nirmal Singh, J.
1. Gian Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants-respondents from the suit property marked ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint on the averments that he was owner in possession of the property in dispute.
2. Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed. The respondents contested the suit as well as the application and pleaded that the plaintiff has encroached upon some portion of land falling in Khasra No. 29 which vests in the Gram Panchayat.
3. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, aggrieved by which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below, the present revision petition has been preferred.
4. Sh. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously dismissed the application of the petitioner on surmises and conjectures. He submitted that the petitioner has planted trees in the land in dispute and respondents No. 3 who is a Member Panchayat wants to encroach upon the property of the petitioner and is alleging that the property vests in the Gram Panchayat.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner but find the same without any substance.
6. In the instant case, Ms. Santosh Sharma, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner. She visited the spot and submitted a detailed report alongwith the site plant. In her report she has submitted that in front of the house of the petitioner, there is a street running from east to west and the width of the street is 15' but in front of the house of the petitioner, the width of the street is 10'.
7. At the hearing, when it was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner as to how the width of the street is 10' in front of the house of the petitioner and on both the sides of the house of the petitioner, the width of the street is 15', he was unable to give any satisfactory reply. The petitioner has not placed on record any document showing that he is owner of the property. From the report of the Local Commissioner, it is clear that the petitioner has encroached upon the land of the panchayat to the extent of 5'. If the width of the street on both the sides of the house of the petitioner is 15' then in front of the house of the petitioner the width of the street must be 15'. Furthermore, the ejectment order against the petitioner has been passed from the land in dispute by Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 18.4.2002. The learned trial court as well as the appellate court, therefore, have rightly held that the petitioner has neither any prima facie case nor balance of convenience is in his favour, therefore, the application has rightly been rejected.
For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this petition and the same isdismissed.