RSA No.2654 of 2005 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 2654 of 2005 Date of decision: 18.01.2011 Rajinder Vedera and another .....Appellants Versus Union of India and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate, for the appellants Ms.Lisa Gill,Advocae for the respondents **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction claiming that defendant No.4 had encroached upon the suit land. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that Dwarka Dass had purchased the land in dispute vide sale deed 16.7.1934 Hence, the plaintiffs were owner of the suit land. Defendant No.4 had raised RSA No.2654 of 2005 2 boundary wall around the suit land in the month of March,1985 on the false plea that it was acquired by the Chandigarh Administration. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs. The defence of the defendants was ordered to be struck off as they had failed to file the written statements despite several opportunities. In support of their case, plaintiffs led their oral as well as documentary evidence. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.2.1999 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal. The said appeal was allowed by the Additional District Judge Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.12004. Consequently the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the legal representatives of the plaintiffs Dwarka Dass. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiffs was that Dwarka Dass had purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 16.7.1934. In appeal, it was brought to the notice of the learned Additional District Judge that the plaintiffs had not come to the Court with clean hands. Plaintiffs had filed a suit claiming similar relief and the said suit was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 18.3.1981. Plaintiffs moved an application for restoration of the suit but the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.8.1982. Plaintiffs did not challenge the said order. Since the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking similar relief had earlier been dismissed for want of prosecution and the application for RSA No.2654 of 2005 3 restoration had been dismissed after due contest, the learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed. The said facts had not been disclosed by the plaintiffs in the present suit. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge January 18, 2011 arya