Rajinder Kumar vs Haryana State and Another

G.C. Mittal, J.—I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and the judgments of the Courts below, and particularly that of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Hisar, which is detailed one.

Admittedly the site is dispute on which a temporary Khokha (Kiosk), is set up belongs to the State of Haryana. When the State started proceedings to remove the temporary Khokha from the site in dispute. Rulia Ram father of the Petitioner filed a civil suit to claim possession of the premises and sought temporary injunction against the State of Haryana. Initially he got the temporary injunction but ultimatly the injunction was vacated and when he failed in the appellate Court also in getting the injunction, he got the suit dismissed on January 9, 1989.

Thereafter, when the State started proceedings for removal of the temporary structure, Rajinder Kumar Petitioner son of Rulia Ram filed suit for the same relief and asked for temporary injunction. Both the Courts below have dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Against the said orders; the Petitioner has perferred this Revision petition.

On a consideration of the matter, I am in agreement with the Courts below that the Plaintiff has no case. In fact the proceedings are an abuse of process of Court. The setting up of a temporary Khokha does not amount to possession of the site underneath so as to force the State Government to take proceedings under the Public Permises Act.

Moreover, the son (Petitioner) did not disclose in the suit that his father had filed suit earlier seeking same relief and has failed. This withholding of the information strengthens the findings of the two Courts below. The son is trying to protect the cause of the father in which the latter has already failed.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision is dismissed with costs.