IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2799 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.10.2009 Ramesh Chand ....Appellant Versus Tek Chand and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. G.K.Chawla, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SABINA,J.(Oral) Plaintiffs-Tek Chand and others filed a suit for permanent injunction,as fully described in para No.1 of the plaint, which was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.) Ferozepur Jhirka, vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2007. Aggrieved by the same, defenedants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 05.09.2007. Hence the present appeal by the appellant. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower Appellate Court in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- "Brief facts as pleaded by the plaintiffs in his plaint are that they were co-owners/co-sharers and in actual possession of the land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint whereupon their construction was in existence and the same were being used for residential and commercial purposes and not for agricultural purposes. The defendant had no right, title and interest whatsoever in it but being a strong headed person he was bent upon to dispossess them RSA No.2799 of 2008 (O&M) ..2.. therefrom and to raise construction forcible and illegally. He was asked many a times to desist from his said illegal activities but to no effect, hence the suit. 3. Upon notice, the appellant-defendant filed written statement taking various preliminary objections viz maintainability, locus standi, estoppel and that the plaintiffs having not come to the court with clean hands. On merits, while denying the averments of the plaint, it was averred that he was in possession of the land bearing Rect. No.184, Killa No.16/1 (2-8) to the extent of 5/16th share, which comes to 15 marlas for the last more than 40 years from the time of his forefathers and the plaintiffs had no concern whatsoever with it and that a revision petition titled "Ramesh Chand Vs. Tek Chand" in respect of correction of revenue entries was pending decision before the Financial Commissioner, Chandigarh. He never surrendered the possession of the said land and had sown mustard crop therein after making barbed wire fencing thereof. The existence of any construction of the plaintiffs on this land was denied specifically. With these broad pleadings, the suit of the plaintiffs was sought to be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff are co-sharers in possession of the land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD RSA No.2799 of 2008 (O&M) ..3.. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own acts and conduct? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed because of concealment of material facts from the court? OPD. ` 6. Relief." After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interferring in their peaceful possession over the suit property. In order to prove their case, plaintiffs led documentary evidence as well as oral evidence. It has been observed by the learned District Judge in the judgment that as per the zamabandis placed on record, Yudhistar father of plaintiff No.1 along with his sister, son and daughter were co- owners in possession of the suit land to the extent half share on the basis of mutation Ex.P-7. Yudhistar inherited the share of his sister Mandho Bai and after the death of Yudhistar, the said land was inherited by plaintiff No.1. So far as plaintiffs no.2 and 3 are concerned, as per mutations Ex.P-5 and P-6, they become owners in possession of the suit land. Defendant-appellant, on the other hand, had failed to lead any evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities. It has further been observed by the learned District Judge that an application for correction of Khasra Girdwari was filed by the appellant but the same was dismissed for want of prosecution on 09.09.2004 by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ferozepur Jhirka. In these circumstances, the courts below rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has also placed on record certified copy of the order vide RSA No.2799 of 2008 (O&M) ..4.. which application filed by the appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the District Judge, Gurgaon. A perusal of the same reveals that by way of additional evidence, the appellant wanted to prove on record certain revenue record. The learned District Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the revenue record now sought to be placed on record, was already in the knowledge of the defendant and he had failed to establish that despite due diligence, he could not produce the said revenue record before the trial court.. In fact, in this case the appellant had failed to lead any evidence in support of his case despite availing sufficient opportunities and his evidence was closed by order by the trial Court. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge had rightly dismissed the application for permission to lead additional evidence filed by the appellant in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. October 27, 2009. (SABINA) Seema-II Judge