RSA No.3818 of 2009 - 1 - ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3818 of 2009 Date of decision:16.08.2010. Nar Singh ...Appellant Versus Mahila Seelai Kendra and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. Plaintiff No.1 is in second appeal against judgment and decree of the Courts below by which the suit has been dismissed. The facts are not required to be recapitulated as they are given in detail in the judgment and decree of the Courts below. However, the relevant findings, which are directly against the plaintiffs, are required to be noticed and the same are as under: - “Civil Suit No.305 was instituted by Ram Karan etc. against Mahila Seelai Kendra which was decided by the court of Mrs. Neerja Kulwant Kalson vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.1999. The certified copies of judgment and decree are available RSA No.3818 of 2009 - 2 - ***** on the records of the case as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. If the judgment Ex.D1 is appreciated in real terms then it can be made out that in the said litigation, the plaintiffs of that suit were claiming that Mahila Seelai Kendra has been constructed on Khasra No.309, whereas in the present case, it is being claimed that Mahila Seelai Kendra is on khasra No.400. The father of appellants namely Daulat Ram had appeared in that suit as PW1 and thus, everything was in the knowledge of plaintiff/appellants. All these material facts were kept concealed from the court which dis- entitles the appellants from claiming the equitable discretionary relief of injunction.” “12. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that Naib Tehsildar Baru Ram, carried out the demarcations of the property in dispute in the present case and the demarcation report is proved on the records of the case as Ex.P4 and the perusal of the report reveals that encroachments have been done on public path, but this Court is of the opinion that the report of Naib Tehsldar is of no avail to the case of the appellants because Baru Ram when stepped into the witness box as DW1 categorically stated that he had not located three pucca points before actually carrying out the demarcation. This means that the procedure prescribed for carrying out the demarcation RSA No.3818 of 2009 - 3 - ***** was not followed by Baru Ram. Be that as it may be, the best evidence i.e. master plan from Municipal Committee, Kaithal was never got produced on the record of the case and it remained in abeyance as to what is the width of the rasta which is in dispute and what is the extent of encroachments done by respondent No.1 (though respondent no.1 is not a juristic person).” Although the plaintiff/appellant has filed the present appeal, but learned counsel for the appellant has failed to raise any question of law much-less substantial as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to persuade this Court to take a view different from the view taken by the Courts below. Hence, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. August 16, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE