HARI RAM versus JYOTI PRASAD & ANR.

HARI RAM versus JYOTI PRASAD & ANR.

The suit was not barred by limitation as encroachment on a public street is a continuing wrong, generating a continuing cause of action on each day of infringement; further, as the suit was filed by an aggrieved user of the street, compliance with Order I Rule 8 CPC was not mandatory. The evidence (site plan, sale deeds, witness testimony) established that the land was a public street and had been encroached upon by the appellant. The judgments of the lower courts confirming injunction and removal of encroachment are upheld.

Parties
Appellant/defendant No. 2: Hari Ram; Respondent No. 1/plaintiff: Jyoti Prasad; Respondents/original Plaintiffs: Jyoti Prasad & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Encroachment, Continuing Wrong, Representative Suit, Public Street, Permanent Injunction
Civil Law Property Law Limitation of Actions Encroachment Continuing Wrong Representative Suit Public Street Permanent Injunction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hari Ram

Appellant/defendant No. 2

Jyoti Prasad

Respondent No. 1/plaintiff

Jyoti Prasad & Anr.

Respondents/original Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.
  2. 2 Whether the suit was bad for non-compliance of the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of the CPC.
  3. 3 Whether the encroachment upon a public street was proved.

Ratio Decidendi

The suit was not barred by limitation as encroachment on a public street is a continuing wrong, generating a continuing cause of action on each day of infringement; further, as the suit was filed by an aggrieved user of the street, compliance with Order I Rule 8 CPC was not mandatory. The evidence (site plan, sale deeds, witness testimony) established that the land was a public street and had been encroached upon by the appellant. The judgments of the lower courts confirming injunction and removal of encroachment are upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Decree of permanent injunction and removal of unauthorized construction confirmed.
  • Appellant directed to vacate and remove unauthorized encroachment within 60 days; failing which, plaintiff/respondent No.1 may get the decree executed as per law.