Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Order Date: 19 June 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Appellants – Rajat Kumar and others (legal heirs of the original plaintiff, Om Parkash); Respondents – S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Mahavidyalaya Sadhaura and others.
- Original suits: Civil Suit No. 426 of 1996 (removal of an illegally constructed wall on common open space) and Civil Suit No. 148 of 2000 (removal of a lintel erected by the school on the plaintiff’s house wall). Both suits sought mandatory injunctions; no prayer for monetary compensation was made.
- Trial Court findings: On 06‑02‑2006, the trial court ordered removal of the wall and, on 08‑11‑2004, ordered removal of the lintel, restraining further construction. These decrees were upheld by the first appellate court on 05‑09‑2007.
- High Court interventions: The defendants appealed (Second Appeals No. 363 and 364 of 2008). On 25‑11‑2011, the Punjab & Haryana High Court reversed the trial court decrees, directing the defendants to pay ₹10,000 and ₹7,000 respectively (each being half the construction cost) with interest at 12% per annum, and treating the wall as a ‘common’ wall.
- Supreme Court’s earlier order: On 13‑09‑2013, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s modification of the decrees, holding that the High Court had acted without addressing the merits and without framing substantial questions of law.
- Subsequent High Court order: On 02‑05‑2016, the High Court again directed the defendants to deposit an amount assessed by a valuer to compensate the plaintiff’s heirs, despite the absence of a compensation prayer.
- Procedural status: Respondents have not appeared since 23‑04‑2019. Counsel for the appellants, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, appeared before the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
- The original suits sought only injunctive relief; imposing monetary compensation was beyond the scope of the decrees.
- The High Court’s direction to assess the wall’s value contravened Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as there was no operative decree for execution.
- The High Court erroneously treated the wall as a ‘common’ wall without a factual finding to that effect.
- The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court’s reversal was based on irrelevant considerations and lacked a substantial question of law.
Final Outcome
- The common judgment dated 02‑05‑2016 (RSA No. 363 of 2008 and 364 of 2008) is set aside.
- The appeals are allowed; the High Court’s earlier decrees ordering removal of the wall and lintel are reinstated.
- The matter is remanded to the High Court to reconsider the appeals afresh under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with an instruction to dispose of the 2008 appeals expeditiously.
- No order as to costs.
Topics: Civil Procedure, Property Dispute