IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) R.S.A.No.562 of 2010 (O&M) Bant Singh ....Appellant Versus Makhan Singh and others ...Respondents 2) R.S.A.No.563 of 2010 (O&M) Bant Singh ....Appellant Versus Makhan Singh and others ...Respondents Date of decision : 8.2.2010 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. R.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellants in both the appeals. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J C.M. No.1559-C-2010 in R.S.A.No.562 of 2010 C.M. is allowed and the appellant is permitted to make good the deficiency of court fee. C.M. No.1560-C-2010 in R.S.A.No.562 of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. R.S.A.No.562 of 2010 (O&M) -2- C.M. Nos.1561 & 1562-C-2010 in R.S.A.No.562 of 2010 For the reasons stated in the applications, delay of 15 days in filing and 521 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A.Nos.562 & 563 of 2010 This order will dispose of the aforesaid two appeals. Bant Singh filed a suit against Makhan Singh, Ghuman Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Marru Singh seeking to restrain them from installing any water pipe or any pipe in the land comprised in Khasra No.318 which was in his ownership and possession. The suit was resisted by the respondents who pleaded that the pipe is outside the khasra number of the appellant. Makhan Singh, who was one of the defendants in the aforesaid suit filed by the appellant, filed a separate suit against Sardara Singh and others wherein the appellant was arrayed as defendant No.4. The suit of the appellant was dismissed by both the courts below while the suit filed by Makhan Singh was dismissed by the learned trial court but in appeal filed by him the findings were reversed. In the suit filed by respondent Makhan Singh he had pleaded that the defendants therein be restrained from encroaching upon the street A to B by blocking the same which leads from northern to southern side of village Hamjhari and blocking the way going from point M to N shown in the site plan attached to the plaint. The suit was also resisted by the appellant on similar grounds which were averred in this suit. The factum of existence of street was, however, not denied. Both the suits were consolidated and disposed of together. As observed earlier, the suit of appellant Bant Singh was R.S.A.No.562 of 2010 (O&M) -3- dismissed by the courts below while the suit of Makhan Singh was initially dismissed by the learned trial court but in appeal the findings were reversed. Aggrieved by the findings recorded by the courts below, the appellant is in regular second appeals. He contended that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse and liable to be set aside. He further contended that the findings are patently erroneous as the existence of a street was never in question and whether the appellant is entitled to injunction restraining the respondents from installing a water pipe in the land comprised in Khasra No.318 was the solitary question to be determined and which has been determined by the courts below by not appreciating the evidence on record. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the present appeals. The witness produced by the appellant in support of his case namely, PW2 Hakam Singh did not support his case and clearly stated in unambiguous terms that the street where water pipes have been installed is out side the abadi of khasra No.318 and the allegations made by Makhan Singh in his suit regarding the encroachment of street are false and Khasra No.319 is a street as per the revenue record. Besides, it was held that the appellant had failed to establish that there was any installation of the pipes by the respondents in his property. On perusal of the controversy appearing from the impugned judgment it is clear that these are merely questions of facts which cannot be gone into in a regular second appeal and no substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. R.S.A.No.562 of 2010 (O&M) -4- The fact that the water pipe was installed in the area belonging to the appellant having not been established by the appellant and not supported by his own witness leads to only inference that the appellant has failed to prove his case. It is in fact apparent that the grievance of the appellant is imaginary as he has only claimed that no pipe should be installed in Khasra No.318, which as a matter of fact has been found to be incorrect, as no pipes were found installed in Khasra No.318. Therefore, in any eventuality the grievance of the appellant stands redressed because the findings recorded by the courts below ostensibly support his case. Both the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the stay applications are also dismissed. 8.2.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss