RSA No. 1644 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1644 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.08.2009 Ram Chand son of Munshi Ram, r/o Talwara Road, Mukerian, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. ... Appellant Versus Municipal Council, Mukerian, through its Executive Officer, M.C. Mukerian, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate, for the appellant. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 08.12.05, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya, vide which, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant, and the judgement and decree dated 23.12.08, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which, it also dismissed the appeal. RSA No. 1644 of 2009 2 2. The plaintiff/appellant, purchased a wooden – kiosk, from one Surat Singh, vide writing dated 07.11.88, and claimed himself to be in continuous possession thereof. It was stated that the plaintiff/appellant, had been doing the business of repair and sale of iron boxes etc. It was further stated that except the kiosk, in question, he had no other means of livelihood. It was further stated that the defendant/respondent, recovered Tehl Bazari, from the plaintiff/appellant. In the year 1993, some officials of the defendant/respondent, with a view to accommodate some other person, in the kiosk, in question, tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff/appellant therefrom, as a result whereof, he filed a suit, wherein, the Executive Officer of the Committee appeared. The Executive Officer of the defendant/respondent, suffered a statement, stating therein, that the appellant, would not be dispossessed forcibly, as a result whereof, the suit, was withdrawn. It was further stated that, thereafter, the appellant, continued his occupation, in the wooden kiosk. However, the defendant/respondent, refused to accept Teh bazari, without assigning any reason. Even the rent sent to the respondent by the appellant, through money orders, was also declined. In the month of November, 2000, one of the officials of the respondent, visited the spot, and he ordered the plaintiff/appellant, to remove the kiosk, failing which, the same, was threatened to be removed forcibly. The respondent, was many a time asked, not do so, but to no avail. On its final refusal, to desist from its nefarious designs, left with no other alternative, a suit for permanent injunction, was filed. RSA No. 1644 of 2009 3 3. The defendant/respondent, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, it took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the suit of the plaintiff, was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the suit, was bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff, had no locus-standi, to file the suit. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff, had not come to the Court, with clean hands. It was stated that the version, put forward, by the plaintiff, was concocted. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP (ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD (iii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPD (iv) Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD (v) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the plaintiff/appellant, which was also dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide judgement and decree RSA No. 1644 of 2009 4 dated 23.12.08. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the plaintiff/appellant,vide writing P1, purchased the kiosk, from Surat Singh, and thereafter, started paying Teh Bazari, to the respondent. He further submitted that the officials of the respondent, later on, refused to accept the Teh Bazari, and threatened to remove the kiosk, forcibly. He further submitted that, even the appellant, used to pay the electricity bills, for the consumption of electricity, in the aforesaid kiosk. He further submitted that the Courts below, recorded perverse findings, in holding, that the plaintiff/appellant, was not entitled to the injunction prayed for. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, RSA No. 1644 of 2009 5 has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. The kiosk, was admittedly placed, on the land, belonging to the Municipal Committee, Mukerian, defendant/respondent. The appellant, had no legal right, to place the kiosk, on the land of the Municipal Committee without permission. If he was granted permission by the Municipal Committee, respondent, at one time, to place kiosk, on its land, and that permission, was later on revoked, that did not give him any licence, to use that property, forever. The Courts below, were, thus, right in holding, that the plaintiff/appellant, had no legal right, for seeking permanent injunction. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, on the aforesaid points, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer, from any illegality or perversity, and, therefore, warrant no interference. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, thus, being without merit, must fail,and the same stands rejected. The judgements and decrees of the Courts below, are liable to be upheld. 11. No question of law, much less substantial, has arisen, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second RSA No. 1644 of 2009 6 Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 25.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE