RSA No.4160 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.4160 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 7, 2011 Manjit Singh .....Appellant v. Pabhuti Nath and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate and Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 15.3.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant against judgment and decree dated 9.4.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, vide which suit filed by respondents no.1 and 2-plaintiffs was decreed against the present appellant and pro forma respondent no.4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, respondents-plaintiffs filed this suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the property in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 26.6.1985 executed in their favour by the appellant and pro forma respondent no.4, i.e., defendants no.1 and 2 and possession of the same was also delivered to them by defendants no.1 and 2 at the time of execution of the sale deed, which was duly registered and that RSA No.4160 of 2010(O&M) -2- after purchasing the suit property, the plaintiffs have also constructed a bungalow over the same. They have also pleaded that earlier property was under ownership of Bawa Singh, father of defendant no.1, who had sold the same in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 and executed sale deeds in their favaour vide registered sale deeds dated 17.5.1985, 20.5.1985 and 16.5.1985 respectively, and on the basis of said sale deeds, they have become owners of the property in dispute and that entry in the revenue record in favour of defendant no.1 is illegal. Notice of the suit was given to present appellant and pro forma respondents and, however, they did not appear despite service. They were proceeded ex parte and ex parte decree was also passed in favour of respondents-plaintiffs by learned trial Court. Appeal was filed by present appellant against the said judgment and decree, which was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that no proper service was effected upon the appellant and that he was illegally proceeded ex parte. However, it has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that no application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte order and ex parte judgment and decree was filed by appellant-defendant and that the decree cannot be set aside on the ground that appellants-defendants were not properly served. So far as merit of the case are concerned, the sale deeds have been duly proved to have been executed by present appellant and pro forma respondent in favour of respondents-plaintiffs. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned RSA No.4160 of 2010(O&M) -3- judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 7.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge