RSA No.122 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.122 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:07.07.2010 Muni Devi & Ors. .... appellants Versus Gram Panchayat, Khaira Khurd, Mansa .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.R.V.S.Chugh,Advocate for the appellants **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. CM No.7095-C of 2010 After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, delay of 61 days in filing the application for restoration of appeal is condoned. CM disposed of. CM No.7096-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, order dated 25.03.2010 dismissing the appeal, is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. CM disposed of. CM No.386-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 14 days in filing this appeal is condoned. CM disposed of. RSA No.122 of 2010(O & M) 2 RSA No.122 of 2010(O & M) This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgement and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, whereby appeal filed by the defendant-respondent was accepted and judgement and decree dated 02.02.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Sardulgarh, granted in favour of the appellants permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-respondent from dispossessing them forcibly and illegally, except in due course of law, was set aside and resultantly, their suit was dismissed. As per the facts, alleged in the plaint, appellants were in cultivating possession of the suit land as owners since long and the revenue records also show them as owners in possession of the suit land. It was alleged that the respondent-Gram Panchayat had no concern whatsoever with the suit land but was bent upon dispossessing the appellants from the suit land, forcibly and illegally, for which it had no right. Hence the present suit. Upon notice, respondent-Gram Panchayat appeared and contested the suit by filing the written statement in which various preliminary objections were raised. On merits, it was averred that appellants have no concern whatsoever with the suit land and the respondent-Gram Panchayat had already been declared as owner of the suit land by the Court. The appellants were in illegal possession of the suit land and the respondent-Gram Panchayat was taking the possession of the suit land in accordance with the law. Rest of the averments made in the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed. No replication was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit holding that the defendant-respondent has no right to dispossess the appellants RSA No.122 of 2010(O & M) 3 from the suit land illegally and forcibly except in due course of law. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the respondent filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court which was accepted vide impugned judgement and decree dated 10.08.2009. While accepting the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court observed that the appellants have not approached the court with clean hands as they had not disclosed the facts of previous litigation. It was also noticed by the Lower Appellate Court that PW1 Balwant Rai had admitted that some cases have been decided in favour of respondent-Gram Panchayat. The Lower Appellate Court also noticed that the respondent-Gram Panchayat has specifically pleaded that it was taking possession of the suit land in accordance with law and therefore the appellants were left with no cause of action. Still not satisfied, the appellants have approached this court by way of instant appeal raising argument that the Lower Appellate Court has ignored the revenue record produced on the case file wherefrom possession of the appellants over the suit land has been established and thus the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: 1. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in ignoring the impact of record of rights and khasra girdawaris? 2. Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to seek permanent injunction as prayed for? 3. Whether the onus to prove the locus standi and cause of action as well as maintainability of the suit can be shifted to the appellants/plaintiffs. It was prayed that the appellants were entitled to the decree of permanent injunction. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgement and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court. No doubt, the plaintiffs are shown in possession of the suit land, however, RSA No.122 of 2010(O & M) 4 a specific stand has been taken by the respondents that they will take possession of the suit land in accordance with law and as such appellants have no cause of action to file the present suit. Moreover, the respondents have specifically pleaded in their written statement that appellants have not disclosed the facts about the previous litigation. No replication has been filed to controvert the aforesaid pleadings. Even the Lower Appellate Court has recorded a finding that appellants have not approached the court with clean hands as noticed above in the foregoing paras. In these circumstances, no error can be found in the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court holding that appellants were not entitled to the discretionary relief of permanent injunction. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 07.07.2010 neenu