CM No. 7976-C of 2010 and ::1:: CM No.679-C of 2010 and RSA No.197 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 7976-C of 2010 and CM No.679-C of 2010 and RSA No.197 of 2010 Date of decision:22.07.2010 Kulwant Singh ..Appellant Versus Jaswant Singh and anothers. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate for the appellant. RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. (ORAL) CM No. 7976-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned, this application is allowed and the order dated 01.07.2010 is recalled. The appeal is restored to its original number. RSA No.197 of 2010 This is plaintiff's (appellant herein) second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property without partition, was dismissed. While dismissing the suit, the learned Lower Appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact that the shop in dispute was owned by Sant Ram and Arjan Singh (predecessor-in-interest of respondents) in equal shares and the share of Sant Ram (predecessor-in-interest of CM No. 7976-C of 2010 and ::2:: CM No.679-C of 2010 and RSA No.197 of 2010 appellant) had fallen to the share of Arjan Singh in a family partition effected on 23.09.1964 between the brothers (Sant Ram and Arjan Singh). Since the appellant is admittedly not in a possession of the suit property and is seeking relief of permanent injunction against the respondents without seeking a declaration of his title, he was not entitled to the relief claimed. In the absence of relief of declaration regarding title, suit for permanent injunction of the appellant, who is admittedly not in possession, was not maintainable. Thus, I find no error in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, no substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. CM No.679-C of 2010 There is a delay of 164 days in filing this appeal. The only ground taken by the appellant for condoning the delay is that he was residing in Rajasthan and was not informed by his counsel. However, the aforesaid assertion made in the application is not supported by any kind of evidence. This is hardly a ground to condone the delay, however, in view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merits, the present application does not survives for consideration. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) July 22, 2010 JUDGE Sukhpreet