RSA No.948 of 2008 (O&M) - 1 - **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.948 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:14.09.2010. Gurdit Singh and others ...Appellants Versus Uttar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. I.S.Brar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) Defendants are in second appeal against judgment and decree of the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were formulated by the Trial Court in which issue No.4 was specifically with regard to the maintainability of the suit. The said issue was not pressed by the defendants/appellants before the Trial Court as is evident from the finding recorded, which reads as under: - “The burden to prove this issue was upon the defendants. During the course of arguments, this issue was not pressed by the ld. counsel for the defendants. As such, this issue is decided against the defendants. It is also pertinent to mention here that the defendants/appellants did not argue about the maintainability of the suit RSA No.948 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - **** even before the First Appellate Court. However, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that with regard to maintainability of the suit, ground was taken in first appeal filed before the First Appellate Court. Be that as it may, even if the ground is taken but if it is not pressed, the Court is not obliged to decide that particular ground. The party, who is aggrieved, is required to raise the ground before the Court for the purpose of its adjudication. Thus, in the absence thereof, there is no error on the part of the First Appellate Court in not deciding the said ground which was not raised before it. The question thus arises as to whether the appellants can raise the plea of maintainability in the second appeal which has not been raised before the Courts below. To my mind, this is not a substantial question of law as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in this appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. September 14, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE