R.S.A.No. 2285 of 1986 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No. 2285 of 1986 Date of decision: 21.10.2010. Joginder Paul Appellant Versus Tilak Raj and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA. Present: None for the appellant. Mr. I.S.Bajwa, Advocate for the respondent. ***** G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. The present appeal has been filed by the defendant who is aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 29.3.1986 passed by the Lower Appellate Court at Jalandhar whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendant/appellant has been decreed. The Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree has come to the conclusion that the Trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff once it had found under Issue No.3 that there was a common wall between the parties and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the joint wall marked ABC and opening any door or window in the said joint wall of the house and accordingly the Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted the permanent injunction to the plaintiff, against which the present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred. That none has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant and notice of actual date of the appeal was issued to the appellant for R.S.A.No. 2285 of 1986 -2- **** 14.5.2009 vide order dated 25.3.2009. Thereafter, notice was also issued for 17.8.2011 on 28.7.2011 and for today on 16.9.2011 to the appellant but position remans the same. That from the judgment of the Trial Court, it would be clear that the Local Commissioner was also appointed and he also opined that the wall was common and the objections against the report of the Local Commission were dismissed under Issue No.3A and thereafter, the Trial Court under issue no.3 came to the conclusion that the wall was common but went to hold that the wall was extended by 3 ft. and, therefore, plaintiff could not object to the opening of the door in the said portion. The Trial Court also noticed that between point B to C, there was a parnala of the plaintiff and held that the defendant would not affect the opening of the door on the portion of wall B to C even though it had dismissed the suit. From the above facts and circumstances, it would be clear that no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration from the pleadings of the parties and the facts on record and the appellant has not even bothered to appear to pursue his appeal which was admitted for hearing on 24.10.1986 on which day he had got an interim order also. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution on behalf of the appellant and in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that there is a joint wall of the parties and on the basis of which the Lower Appellate Court held that the defendant has no right to open the door or window in the said joint wall. October 21, 2011 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Pka JUDGE