70 1 1e gular Second Appeal Noe 2985 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB 6 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH see Date of Declsion2 March 2011 1 RegularSecond Appeal Noe 2985 of 2010 1 ir Gurcharan Singh Appeliant eee 0 0 I VERSUS C9 I MohinderSingh and another Respondents Z 2 rJ CORAM HONBLE MRUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 1e Whether Reportersof Local papers may be allowed to see the judgmerlt7 Z 2 To be referred to the Reportersor not7 4t 3 Whether the judgmentshouid be reportedin the Digest7 CO Presentl MrDeepakSharmaAdvoca 7 Z for the appellant tl MOHINDER PAL J The plaintiffeappellantIs In second appeal aggrieved againstthe judgmentsand decrees passed by the Courts below whereby hls suit for permanent lnjunctlon irl respectof the plot tn dispute has been dismlssed by both the Courts below I have heard the Iearned counsel for the appellant and have gone throughthe records of the case The and the defendantespondents KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.19 16: 00 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 1 2 Reqular Second APpeal No985 of 2010 are real brothers The claim of the plalntlffvappellantwas that the plot in disputehad been sold to him by Sawinder Singh 0 11 288 1998 The defendantsespondentsIIad denied thls plea of the plaintifappellant The trial Court after framingissues arisingout of the jmm tr pleadingsof the parties recording evidence Ied by the parties 0 and hearing their counsel dismissed the sult of the plaintiff The 0 appeal preferred by the appellant agalnst the judgmentand 0 decree passed by the trial Court was dismlssed by the Iower appellateCourt Both the Courts below have found that the Z failed to produce on record the original 2 ProceedingsBook of the Gram Panchayatshowlngthat the plot In I disputehad been sold to him by Sawlnder Singh on 282 1998 On C the contrary the plaintiff producedon record photostatcopy of Z the ProceedingsBook of the Gram Panchayat The same had not Ol been attested by any person nor had been got provedon 7 Z record by the from any comjoetentperson The Courts below were justified in holdingthat the photostatcopy of the ProceedingsBook of the Gram Panchayat could not be read into evidence Besides the matter between the partiesalreadystood declded vide judgment and decree dated 4A2004 regardlngthe plot in dispute The judgment Exhiblt D 11 shows that the suit filed by Mohinder Singh lefendanespondent No ll against the plaintifappellant and Gram Panchayat regardingthe plot in dispute had been decreed in favour of Noel Mohinder Singh Plaintifippellant Gurcharan Singh PW lJ KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.19 16: 00 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 4 ee3e Reqular Second AweNoe 2985 of 2010 in his crosseexamination admltted that the suit filed by defendantrespondentMohinder Singh In respectof the plot in dispute was decreed infavour of MohinderSinghon 42004 and that the instant suit was filed by him after 10115 days of the decision In the suit filed by defendantm 1 r respondent Mohinder Singh e Once the matter had already been 0 settled it could not be allowed to be agltated again and again U Under the circumstances both the Courts below have rightly heid C5 that the plaintiffappellant has failed to prove his I entitlement to get the relief claimed In this casee Z Under the circumstances I do not find any patent r illegalityor irregularityin the findingsrecorded by the Courts below I which may give rise to any substantial questlonof Iaw in the present r appeal Resultantly this appeal Is herebydismissed being Z without any merit CO a 9 m Z 1 1 March 2011e OUDGE 1 tl ak IV b934 9 KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.19 16: 00 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document