RSA No. 3162 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3162 of 2007(O&M) Decided on :02-04-2009 Braham Dutt and others ....Appellants VERSUS Kailash Chand and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the appellants MAHESH GROVER, J C.M. No.4040-C of 2009 C.M allowed. Corrected copy of page no.12 of the paper book is taken on record. RSA No. 3162 of 2007 This is defendant's second appeal directed against the judgments of learned Trial Court dated 14.2.2003 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 21.3.2006. The plaintiff-predecessor in interest of the present respondents filed a suit seeking to restrain the defendants-appellants from interfering in his possession of the suit land. According to the pleadings, he averred that he was the owner in possession of the plot which was reflected by letters ABCDE in the site plan which formed a part of khasra no. 239. The disputed portion was also shown in the site plan with letters BCFG. The defendants-appellants submitted that the plot in dispute was not a part of khasra no. 239 and neither was the plaintiff in possession RSA No. 3162 of 2007(O&M) 2 thereof. In short, there was denial to the entire pleadings set up by the plaintiff. Following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:- 1. Whether the respondent is owner in possession of the disputed property?OPP. 2. If Ist issue is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction, as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD. 6. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs u/s 35- A CPC?OPD. 7. Whether the report of Local Commissioner is liable to be set- aside?OP Objector. 8. Relief. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and in appeal, the findings of the learned Trial Court were upheld which has resulted in the filing of the present regular second appeal by the defendants. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and deserve to be set aside. It is further contended that the findings are based on mis-reading of the entire evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants-defendants and RSA No. 3162 of 2007(O&M) 3 perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the considered opinion that the contention so raised before this Court is totally mis-placed. Pure findings of facts have been determined by both the Courts below regarding the identity of the suit property as also the measurements. The said findings were recorded on the basis of the site plan Ex.PW2/A which was compared with the Aks sizra Ex.P3 and khatoni Bandobast Ex. P2 wherein the plot in dispute was also shown and which on comparison tallied. The ownership of this plot was in the name of Des Raj who was great grand-father of the plaintiff. The appellants have not brought on record any evidence which could reflect to the contrary. The learned First Appellate Court has also taken pains to record measurements of the suit property while comparing it with the revenue record. In this view of the matter, only pure findings of facts have been determined by both the Courts below and no substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal. That apart, the appeal is also barred by an inordinate delay of 9 months in filing and 26 days in refiling which has not been explained satisfactorily and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. April 2 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge