RSA No.2365 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2365 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 9, 2011 M/s BTL Industries Ltd. .....Appellant v. The Chairman/Administrator Market Committee and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Adish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.10299-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, order dated 5.9.2011, dismissing the appeal in default is recalled. Registry is directed to register the appeal at its original number. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.2365 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 21.1.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Faridabad, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 11.6.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide which suit filed by him was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for decree for RSA No.2365 of 2011(O&M) -2- permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants from interfering in its possession from the land in dispute as well as for mandatory injunction to withdraw demand notice dated 9.7.2003 and further restraining respondents from recovering any amount of interest or penal interest from the appellant-plaintiff. Admittedly, premises in dispute was allotted to appellant- plaintiff by respondent-Market Committee on installment basis being highest auction purchaser. Though appellant-plaintiff deposited the initial installment and, however, he failed to deposit the remaining installment as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter Ex.P1. Hence, notice was issued to him as per terms and conditions of allotment letter for recovery of the remaining installments alongwith interest. Only plea taken by present appellant-plaintiff is that some amenities, which were to be provided by the respondents-Market Committee, were not provided. However, as per own admission of appellant-plaintiff, he as well as many other plot holders have already raised construction over the respective plots and are conducting their businesses. Secretary-cum-Executive Officer, market Committee, has also deposed that appellant as well as other plot holders after raising construction are conducting their businesses. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does RSA No.2365 of 2011(O&M) -3- not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 9.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge