CM No.6372-C of 2011 in Regular Second Appeal No.2138 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:27.05.2011 Harnoor Singh(minor) ....appellant Versus Kamla Devi & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.H.S.Baath, Advocate for the petitioner *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgement and decrees of the courts below, whereby his suit for possession of the suit land was dismissed. Notice of motion was issued in this appeal for 24th September, 2010. However, the necessary requisites were not filed by the counsel for the appellant for issuance of notices to the respondents for the said date, even, no one was present to assist the Court and under those circumstances, the appeal was dismissed in default vide order dated 24th September, 2010. The appellant filed Civil Misc.No.4726-27-C of 2011 before this Court for recalling of the aforesaid order. However, vide order dated CM No.6372-C of 2011 in Regular Second Appeal No.2138 of 2010 2 29.04.2011,the applications were ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh applications. Instant application i.e.Civil Misc.No. 6372-C of 2011 has been filed under Order 41 Rule 19 for restoration and re-admission of this appeal. Along with this application, Civil Misc.No.6371-C of 2011 has also been filed for condoning the delay of 211 days in filing the said application for restoration. Though, there is no justification for recalling of the order dated 24th September, 2010, yet in the interest of justice, I have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the appeal, as well. The appellant is seeking possession of the suit land on the ground that the land in dispute was owned and possessed by defendant/respondent No.2 Pirthi Singh. Since the land in question was ancestral property, plaintiff-appellant had a right therein by birth. The said land was sold by respondent No.2 without any legal necessity in favour of respondent No.1 vide impugned sale deed. Hence, the aforesaid sale is not binding qua his rights and he is entitled to the possession of the suit land. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the sale made by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 was for bona fide legal necessity. There is nothing on record on the basis of which the aforesaid finding of fact can be held to be perverse, attracting the interference of this Court in its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Even otherwise, admittedly, father of the appellant, who is alive, has never challenged the aforesaid sale. In view of the aforesaid facts, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Thus, I find no reason to recall my earlier order dated CM No.6372-C of 2011 in Regular Second Appeal No.2138 of 2010 3 24.09.2010. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 27.05.2011 neenu