IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1340 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 5, 2011. Ashok Kumar. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Piara. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 22.09.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissing the appeal filed by appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 21.04.2005 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Garhshankar vide which suit filed by the present appellant-plaintiff, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.1340 of 2010 Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed this suit for a decree for permanent injunction restraining respondent-defendant from raising any sort of construction or encroaching upon any part of the public street in dispute as shown with letters ABCD in the site plan bounded as given in the plaint. Suit was contested by respondent-defendant. However, as no evidence was adduced on behalf of appellant-plaintiff, suit was dismissed by learned trial Court and appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that even as per version of respondent-defendant, he gave three feet in breadth from eastern side to Gram Panchayat for brick paving the same to be used as street out of his own property and that Gram Panchayat brick paved the same and the same is being used by appellant-plaintiff to approach the site shown yellow in colour. However, respondent-defendant submitted that though appellant-plaintiff had been using the said street to approach the site shown yellow in colour and however, appellant-plaintiff removed the bricks of the said street and enlarged the breadth as six feet himself, by taking the advantage of the absence of respondent-defendant from the village and filed the present suit. It is further submitted by respondent-defendant that there had been no street of six feet breadth as alleged and that defendant never threatened the plaintiff nor there was any occasion to do so. Hence, in view of these facts, when respondent-defendant has specifically stated in his statement that he never threatened the plaintiff nor there was any occasion to do so, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and 2 RSA No.1340 of 2010 decrees. Finding recorded by both 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 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 5, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3