RSA No.4448 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4448 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7.4.2010 Varish @ Ishwar @ Ishant ..Appellant. Vs. Chuni Lal and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.B.S.Kathuria, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff along with an application for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing of the appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction alleging that defendant No.1 is his grand father and defendants No.2 to 7 are his real uncles and aunts. His father died on 30.10.2004. The property in dispute was joint but after the death of his father, defendant wanted to grab the share of the plaintiff as they are not allowing him to enjoy the property. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for a decree of declaration to the extent of 1/8th share as a legal heir of defendant No.1. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff has already received a sum of Rs.45,000/- as per Panchayatnama dated 12.11.2001. He had suffered a statement in the Court of Sh.G.R.Banyal, Additional District Judge, Ludhiana in this regard. RSA No.4448 of 2009 (O&M) -2- On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed but despite availing six effective opportunities, the plaintiff did not lead any evidence. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.9.2008 dismissed the suit on the ground that there is no evidence on record as even the plaintiff has not stepped into the witness box in support of his case. The first appeal was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, FTC Ludhiana on 20.7.2009. Learned counsel for the appellant could not cause any dent in the judgment and decree of both the Courts below as there is no evidence on record led by the plaintiff in support of his pleadings. Thus, he could not even make out any question of law much less substantial for the purpose of adjudication by this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `CPC'). Thus, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is also dismissed. No costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 7.4.2010 Judge Meenu