Pritam Singh vs Layak Ram And Others

Sureshwar Thakur, J

The plaintfifs’ suit, bearing civil suit No. 256/1 of 2015, seeking therethrough hence rendition, of, a decree, of, injunction, vis-à -vis, the, suit

khasra No. 745/406, and, against the defendants, became decreed, and therethrough defendants became restrained, from, digging, and, constructing

the, land, comprised in, the, afore suit khasra No(s). The aggrieved therefrom, hence defendants instituted thereagainst, an appeal, before the learned

first appellate Court, and the latter, on, Civil Appeal No. 84-N/13 of 2018, after reversing, the, impugned judgment and decree, rendered by the learned

trial Court, rather, dismissed the plaintiffs’ afore suit. The plaintiff becoming aggrieved therefrom, and, for striving, to beget reversal, of, the

verdict, pronounced, upon, the afore civil appeal, by the learned first appellate Court, has, thereagainst instituted, the, instant appeal, before this Court.

Even though, a perusal of Ext. PW1/A, exhibit whereof, is, the jamabandi, appertaining to the suit khasra Nos. makes rather vivid disclosures, vis-

à -vis, the plaintiffs, being the apt co-owner, alongwith the other recorded co-owners, in, the suit khasra Nos. However, the afore factum, is, un-

workable, vis-Ã -vis-, the plaintiff, for, his hence making any sucessful attempt, to, scuttle the impugned verdict, as, becomes assailed herebefore. The

reasons, for making the afore conclusions, becomes, sparked from (a) Ext. D-1, exhibit whereof, rather appertains, to, the awarding of works, by the

HPPWD department, to, the Contractor concerned, for, his proceeding, to, undertake the execution, of, the apposite public road, and wherefrom, a

conclusion, is, garnered, vis-Ã -vis, the alleged interference, if, any, through purported excavation, or diggings, as became attributed, to, the defendants,

rather becoming perse falsified,(b) rather interference, if any, being a valid interference, through an award, vis-Ã -vis, the execution, of, the apposite

public road, hence, becoming made, to, the Contractor concerned, by the HPPWD department. In after-math, and, in sequel thereto, rather there

arising an, imperative necessity, for, the plaintiff, to, array, in the array, of, defendants, rather, the HPPWD. It appears that the plaintiff, for, ensuring

through his deliberately hence omitting, to, implead, in the array of co-defendants, rather, the, HPPWD, his, rather therethrough making false

averments, against the defendants, rather only for his untenably striving, to, sustain his espousal, (c) wherefrom, a further sequel, becomes sparked,

vis-Ã -vis, the afore suppression, working, adversarially against, the plaintiff, especially when, unless the plaintiff comes with clean hands, thereupon,

the equitable relief, of, injunction, becoming, un-accordable, vis-Ã -vis, him, as aptly done, by the learned first appellate Court.

3 . Furthermore, it also becomes underscored, from, the reading, of, the cross-examination, of the plaintiff, and, wherein, he rather echoed, qua a

substantial part, of, the, apposite public project, becoming completed, and, also, has echoed, vis-Ã -vis, his being driven to institute the extant suit, (a) as

he, therethrough intended to prevail upon, the defendants, to, construct the bus stand, upon his land, than upon the land, of, some other person, (b)

wherefrom also, an inference becomes garnered, vis-Ã -vis, the plaintiff camouflaging, vis-Ã -vis, in his, instituting the extant suit, rather his becoming

not goaded, by the apt bonafides, rather in his instituting, the extant suit, his becoming visibly activated, by, the afore malafides. Furthermore, when

also, he omitted to join, hence the afore necessary party, in the array, of, co-defendants, therefrom it appears that merely for his avoiding, to, mete

compliance, with, the statutory necessity, of, his, serving, a, notice under Section 80 CPC, upon, the Secretary of HPPWD, Govt of H.P., prior, to his

instituting the instant suit, his mis-constituting, the, extant suit, before the learned trial Judge.

As afore-stated, since, the afore malafides, hence ingrain the plaintiffs’ suit, and, further when a substantial portion, of, the suit land, becomes,

subjected to construction, of, a road, rather at the instance, of, the HPPWD, and, with the latter remaining un-arrayed, in the array, of, co-defendants,

despite, it being both a just, and, a necessary party, to, the lis, (a) thereupon also, the relief of injunction, is, neither claimable, nor, is, renderable against

them. In addition, with Exhibit, D-1, comprising the awarding, of, apposite works, by the HPPWD, to the Contractor concerned, hence with the afore

exhibit, rather prevailing upon, the, depositions’, of, the plaintiffs’ witnesses, thereupon no credence, was meteable to the oral deposition(s), of,

the plaintiffs’ witnesses, as aptly done, by the learned appellate Court. Moreover, with PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, all, with unanimity, and, un-

equivocality, making consistent depositions, vis-Ã -vis, the plaintiff, meteing, consent, to the PWD department, for, the latter raising construction, upon

the suit land, (a) and, whereafter, the apposite letter, as, comprised in Ext. D-1, became issued, by the HPPWD, to, the Contractor concerned, (b) and

with the plaintiff, not denying, the correctness, of, his signatures, as, borne thereon, (c) rather his counsel, while holding the afore witnesses, to, cross-

examination, his merely putting suggestion(s), to them, vis-Ã -vis, the signatures, of, the plaintiff, becoming obtained, on the pretext, vis-Ã -vis, theirs

therethrough according water sanction, to the village, (d) yet, the afore suggestions’, are, benumbed, vis-à -vis vigor, if any, , especially when

faced, with, the plaintiff, rather in his cross-examination, hence making echoing(s), qua his being driven, to institute the extant suit, for, ensuring there-

through, vis-Ã -vis, his land being put to use for construction, of, a bus-stand, than, the land, of, some other person. The afore echoing(s), existing, in

the cross-examination, of, the plaintiff, as afore-stated, rather ingrain the extant suit, with the, vice of malafides and hence bar him to claim the

equitable relief, of, injunction, as the afore relief becomes grooved, in, the trite principle, vis-Ã -vis, the plaintiff, coming to the Courts, with the clean

hands, whereas, for the aforestated reasons, his, rather concealing, the, afore factum probandem, has hence soiled his hands, and, besides has

obviously precluded himself, from claiming the equitable relief, of, injunction. No question of law, muchless, any substantial question of law, arises for

determination.

Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal, and, the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree, pronounced by the learned First

appellate Court, in, Civil Appeal No. 84-N/13 of 2018, is affirmed, and, maintained. The records be sent back forthwith. All pending application(s), if

any, are also disposed of. No costs.