Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARASH VARDHAN versus UNION OF INDIA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Harash Vardhan v. Union of India - RSA-801-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 956 (20 February 2006)

R.S.A. No. 801 of 2006 (O&M) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 801 of 2006 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 23, 2006

Harash Vardhan

.....Appellant

Vs.

Union of India

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate

for the appellant.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two Courts below in a suit for mandatory injunction. It was claimed by him that he was using the passage in question for ingress/ outgress of his house from times immemorial and a big junction box had been installed by the defendant which had resulted in obstruction in the aforesaid passage. He claimed that the defendants should remove the aforesaid junction box.

The defendant remained ex-parte and did not file any written statement. However, both the Courts below on the evidence produced by the plaintiff himself have held that mere installation of the junction box which was R.S.A. No. 801 of 2006 (O&M) [2]

only 6 ft x 2ft, no such obstruction was caused as would create a problem for the plaintiff. It was also noticed that junction box in question was for general good of the public, and therefore, the plaintiff could not be heard to make any grievance.

Sh.R.S.Athwal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has very vehemently argued that the judgments of the Courts below are totally wrong and unsustainable inasmuch as the defendant had not even appeared and filed the written statement to contest the claim of the plaintiff. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that the junction box in question was really obstructed the passage in question.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel, I do not find any merit in the same. It is well settled that the plaintiff has to prove his own case and would have to stand on his own legs.

Merely because the defendant remained ex-parte and not filed any written statement, the claim of the plaintiff could not be decreed straightway. Both the Courts below have found that the junction box in question was no obstruction for the user of the passage by the plaintiff.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

February 23, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.