IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Regular Second Appeal No. 254 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.2.2008 Darbara Ram and others --- Appellants Versus Haryana Kalyan Nigam, Sirsa through its Managing Director and another --- Respondents *** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Shailendra Momi, Advocate for the appellants. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This second appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs-Darbara Ram and others is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2007 of the District Judge, Sirsa affirming the trial court judgment and decree dated 19.3.2004 vide which the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction was dismissed. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1- the Haryana Kalyan Nigam, Sirsa from recovering any amount of loan from them in the garb RSA No. 254 of 2008 of false allotment of agricultural land. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that they belonged to Harizan families. Defendant No.1 launched a scheme for making available two acres of land in village Abholi District Sirsa, to those families, who were living below the poverty line, after having purchased the same from land-owners. It was ensured through the scheme that the price of the land will be made available to them by raising loan. It was further averred that in the said process, thumb impressions of the plaintiffs were obtained on some papers, on the basis of which, outstanding loan amounts have been shown against them without allotting and/or giving possession of any land. The defendants controverted the pleas of the plaintiffs and stated that the plaintiffs had applied for grant of loan to pay off the sale consideration of the land which the defendants purchased for them. A detail of the land, so purchased, was mentioned by the defendants in the written statement. The controversy was compressed to various issues detailed in the impugned judgments. The trial court while holding the plaintiffs to be blame-worthy for concealment of facts, held in clear terms that since they had not come to the court with clean hands, no relief could be granted to them. The trial court, for this view, drew sustenance from a Full Bench verdict of this Court in Chiranji Lal and others Versus Financial Commissioner and others, 1978 PLJ 373 (P&H) wherein it was categorically held that the court would refuse to grant relief without going into the merits if it was found that the plaintiffs had not come to the court with clean 2 RSA No. 254 of 2008 hands. In order to substantiate their claim, only one witness, i.e. Darbara Ram, one of the plaintiffs, stepped into the witness box. No other evidence was led by the plaintiffs. The defendants, on the other hand, established on record by producing cogent evidence in the shape of sale deeds, agreements, authority letters and receipts of payment that the loan was raised by the plaintiffs and land was purchased for them by the defendants. No documentary evidence was led on behalf of the plaintiffs to rebut the evidence led by the defendants and resultantly, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.3.2004. The first appellate court, on appeal being carried by the plaintiffs, concurred with the findings returned by the trial court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2007. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. A perusal of the impugned judgments shows that the plaintiffs had miserably failed to establish their pleas raised in the suit. It was sought to be argued before the trial court by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, on the strength of a decision of this Court in Joginder Singh and others vs. Haryana Khadi and Village Industry Board and Ors. 1989 SLJ Reports (P&H) 635 that even if it was proved on record that the plaintiffs had taken loan from the defendants, the latters could not straightway adopt coercive methods like arrest and detention of the plaintiffs. The argument was found to have no force in the wake of the pleas of the plaintiffs having been found to be totally false. The suit was thus rightly dismissed by the trial court. The 3 RSA No. 254 of 2008 findings of the trial court found favour with the first appellate court which, on re-appreciation of the unrebutted evidence of the defendants, came to the conclusion that the land was purchased by the defendants for the plaintiffs by way of different sale deeds registered with the Sub Registrars of Sirsa, Ellnabad and Rania and there was a recital in the sale deeds that the possession of the land, so purchased, was handed over to the plaintiffs. No illegality or perversity could be pin-pointed by the learned counsel for the appellants so as to persuade this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below. No substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) February 19, 2008 JUDGE *MALIK* 4