IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3050 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 18, 2011. Kamaljit Sharma and others. ...... APPELLANTS Versus Gram Panchayat village Blanpur and others. ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M. No.8351-C of 2011. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3050 of 2011. The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 01.03.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur dismissing appeal filed by the present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 26.07.2010 passed by learned Civil RSA No.3050 of 2011 Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur vide which suit filed by appellants- plaintiffs was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from carving out water drain and from fixing permanent water pipe for disposal of water of the village on the plea that the same would cause damage to the land of the appellants-plaintiffs. On notice being issued, respondents-defendant No.1 Gram Panchayat contested the suit by taking the plea that there are already three pullies in existence in the road of the village and through the said pullies, rainy water of the village abadi leads to khai/ditch existing on the western side of the road and that now another pully is to be constructed at point G to H as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint. Plea has also been taken that the road was damaged as rainy water could not cross the road. Specific plea has been taken that pully is being constructed for disposal of rainy water of the village into the khai/ditch situated on the other side of the road. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs. Appeal filed by them against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur. It has been admitted by the witnesses of the appellants-plaintiffs that three pullies were already constructed by Public Works Department on 2 RSA No.3050 of 2011 the village road through which the rainy water of the village is passing for being discharged in a khai/ditch situated on the other side of the road. They have also admitted that on the eastern side of the road, there is a drain which is used for irrigation from the water of the said khal and the same goes to agricultural land of different villagers. The road is 40 years old and due to the action of the present appellants, the development work of the road has been affected. Hence, it has been rightly observed by the learned courts below that the fixation of the pipe for passing of the rainy water of the village to the other side would not cause any damage to the land of the appellants-plaintiffs as already some other pullies are also existing and the same are part of the project. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 18, 2011. JUDGE Sachin M. 3