Regular Second Appeal No. 4482 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 4482 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 4.8.2011 Harnam Singh ... Appellant Versus Kewal Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate for the appellant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 13404-C of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 19 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No. 4482 of 2010 The present appeal has been filed by the defendant to the suit. The respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction praying that the appellant/defendant be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from interfering in his possession in any manner over the suit land, details and description whereof has been given in head note of the plaint. It was further prayed that the defendant be restrained from digging out any earth from the suit land and to cause any damage. Furthermore, he should be restrained not to change the nature of land forcibly. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land in dispute and the defendant has no right, title or interest therein. Regular Second Appeal No. 4482 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Upon notice, the defendant had caused appearance, filed a written statement and took a specific stand that the respondent/plaintiff was not in physical possession of the suit land. After completion of the pleadings, the trial Court had formulated the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Relief.” Issues No.1 and 2 were decided together. The trial Court relied upon the testimony of the plaintiff-Kewal Singh as PW.1 to hold that he is a sole owner in possession of the land measuring 10 kanals 16 marlas and also a co-owner in possession of the land measuring 2 kanals 3 marlas. The present appellant/defendant appeared himself in the witness box as DW.1 and stated that the suit had been filed by the respondent/plaintiff only to harass him and he is not in possession of the land measuring 12 kanals 19 marlas as per jamabandi Ex.P1. But he voluntarily stated that all the co-owners are in possession of the land measuring 2 kanals 3 marlas in khasra No. 2558/691/1. Therefore, the trial Court held that the plaintiff being in exclusive possession of 10 kanals 16 marlas of land was entitled to grant of injunction, however, qua land measuring 2 kanals 3 marlas, the injunction was declined. Aggrieved against the same, the defendant had filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court, considering the admission made by the present appellant/defendant in cross-examination upheld the Regular Second Appeal No. 4482 of 2010 (O&M) 3 finding of the trial Court. Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phagwara, vide its judgment dated 9.12.2005, held the present appellant/defendant as in exclusive possession of the suit property and furthermore, the Court of District Juge, Kapurthala, vide its judgment dated 4.10.2006, had upheld the aforesaid judgment. However, on asking of the Court, learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that both these judgments were not made part of the Court file. Furthermore, even no application for additional evidence was filed before the lower Appellate Court. Even in this appeal, the abovesaid judgments have not been brought on record. Therefore, this Court, cannot go through the contents of the judgments, can make no comments on the bald assertion advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/defendant during the course of arguments especially when no steps have been taken towards their proof and admissibility. Both the Courts below returned the findings on the basis of appreciation of evidence. Therefore, no ground is made out to disturb those findings in the regular second appeal, particularly when learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, has failed to raise any question of law, much less a substantial one, for consideration of this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 4, 2011 “DK”