REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2545 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO.2545 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 20, 2011 State of Punjab & others .... Appellants Versus Sadhu Ram & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. V. K. Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Y. S. Turka, Advocate for the respondents. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Defendants State of Punjab and its Ranger, Forest Department, are in second appeal. Respondents/plaintiffs filed suit against appellants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and from dispossessing the plaintiffs therefrom in any manner. Defendants put in appearance in the trial court but did not file any written statement inspite of several adjournments. Therefore, their defence was struck off. Defendants were not allowed to lead any evidence as defence of defendants stood struck off. Learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Rajpura vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2004 decreed the plaintiffs' suit, restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and removing REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2545 of 2010 -2- mango trees therefrom, except in due course of law. First appeal preferred by defendants has been dismissed by Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned State counsel for the appellants on instructions from Raghubir Singh, Kanungo contended that defendants filed ejectment petition against the plaintiffs on 22.04.2005 under the Punjab Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act and the said application was allowed by the Collector vide order dated 27.02.2006 and in execution thereof, appellants have already taken possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs. The aforesaid contention would reveal that plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. Therefore, they could not be dispossessed from the suit land except in due course of law. Decree to this effact was, therefore, rightly passed by the trial court. If appellants have taken possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs in due course of law, the same is not required to be adjudicated upon in the instant second appeal. Fore the reasons aforesaid, the instant second appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 20.01.2011 'raj'