IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3394 of 2006 Date of decision: 22nd December, 2008 Parshotam Dass and others … Appellants Versus Chaman Lal … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellants. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Appellants, in the present case, are aggrieved against the injunction passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court, wherein it was stated that the appellant defendants shall remove encroachment on the disputed passage within a period of two months from the date of the order and they are further restrained from creating any blockage in the disputed passage. Mr. Vijay Lath, during the course of arguments, has admitted that the passage is joint. In this background, it will be necessary to notice the brief facts. Respondent plaintiff had purchased the property on 28th October, 1991 from one Banta Ram son of Telu Ram. The seller to the respondent plaintiff, Banta Ram had sold the property along with right of passage. It is admitted that earlier, a civil suit was instituted on 4th November, 1982 by Banta Ram and the same was decided on 13th February, 1985. Predecessor of the appellant defendants herein, was also party to that suit. The suit was compromised vide compromise dated 23rd Regular Second Appeal No.3394 of 2006 January, 1985 and a site plan was attached as Ex.C-1, which has been exhibited in the present suit as Ex.P-2. The suit was subsequently amended. A prayer was made that the passage has been blocked by the appellant defendants by constructing/ raising iron gates in the gallery and the same be also got removed. A written statement was filed, in which appellant defendants admitted residence of the respondent plaintiff. On merits, it was denied that Banta Ram, seller of the property to respondent plaintiff, was using the passage in dispute. It was also denied that the passage was in existence. The trial Court had taken into consideration the site plan (Ex.P-2) along with compromise, which was arrived at in the previous suit between Banta Ram on one side and Rakha and Labhu on other side. Plaintiff respondent draw his rights from Banta Ram, whereas appellant defendants from Rakha and Labhu. The Court meticulously examined the evidence and evalued the same and held that parties are bound by the earlier compromise and site plan attached thereto. The Court also took into consideration that Parshotam Dass appellant defendant had taken a stand contrary to his written statement. As stated earlier, the suit was decreed and injunction was issued, whereby appellant defendants were directed to remove the encroachment on the disputed passage and were restrained from creating any blockage in the disputed passage. Plea raised before this Court was also considered by the lower appellate Court. After discussing the evidence, findings of the trial Court were concurred. It cannot be said that there is any misreading of evidence or the judgments of two courts below are perverse. Counsel for the appellants had placed reliance upon site plan (Ex.D-1) and has stated that same was not properly appreciated. Re-appreciation and re-appraisal is not 2 Regular Second Appeal No.3394 of 2006 permissible in regular second appeal. Counsel has failed to formulate any substantial question of law, which warrants interference of this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 22, 2008 rps 3