R.S.A.No.792 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.792 of 2009 Date of Decision : 27.7.2009 Balvir Singh ...Appellant Versus Kewal Singh ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for injunction was dismissed. The plaintiff has sought injunction claiming himself to be co- sharer of the suit land measuring 107 Kanals 15 Marlas. It was alleged that defendant is not Kewal Singh, but in fact Satnam Singh S/o Nachhattar Singh, though he is representing himself as Kewal Singh S/o Raou Singh. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit after appreciating the evidence. In fact, learned first Appellate Court has noticed that it is a case of evidence on oath versus oath and that the plaintiff has not summoned the alleged Satnam Singh, as a witness wherefrom the actual controversy could have been determined. Thus, the Court found that the plaintiff has failed to establish that Kewal Singh is a fictitious person. The Court has taken into consideration his birth certificate Ex.D-1 and Jamabandi Ex.P-1, that he is a co-owner alongwith the plaintiff. R.S.A.No.792 of 2009 2 Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are sought to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence. However, it could not be pointed that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be permitted to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence in second appeal. Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 27.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE