IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2422 of 2009 Date of Decision : October 07, 2009 Harjit Singh ...Appellant Versus Municipal Council, Phagwara ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant against Municipal Council, Phagwara from interfering and/or taking possession by force and/or demolishing any part of structure and/or boundary walls of the suit property, was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 15.10.2007, which judgment and decree was upheld by the learned lower appellate Court on 23.9.2008. Aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff is now before this Court in a second appeal which he has preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The father of the appellant had earlier filed suit No. 153 dated 24.7.1972 against Municipal Committee, Phawara. The same was decreed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Phagwara on 9.5.1975 by holding that the plaintiff therein was in possession over the suit property. The first appeal filed against R.S.A. No. 2422 of 2009 -2- the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned Senior Sub Judge, with enhanced appellate powers, Kapurthala on 13.1.1977. A perusal of judgment dated 9.5.1975 which has been attached alongwith the present appeal, would reveal that though the Municipal Committee, Phagwara failed to establish that the suit property was public street yet the plaintiff therein also failed to produce any document regarding his ownership over the suit property. The natural corollary of the said decision was that though the plaintiff therein was in possession of the suit property yet his possession was unauthorised as he was not the owner of the same. Consequent to the passing of the aforementioned judgments whereby the suit filed by Bishan Singh, father of the plaintiff-appellant, was decreed, learned Collector vide order dated 26.4.1982 directed Harjit Singh to vacate the premises in question as it belonged to Municipal Council, Phagwara. The said order was challenged by the plaintiff by filing an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Commissioner on 15.9.1984. The petitioner did not leave the matter there and approached this Court. Vide order dated 15.4.1985, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Municipal Council, Phagwara was entitled to proceed against the plaintiff-appellant in accordance with law since the previous notice had been issued in the name of his late father Bishan Singh. The plaintiff then filed another suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Council, Phagwara so as to restrain it from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property but the same was dismissed by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree Exs.D3 and D4, respectively. Even the first appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, R.S.A. No. 2422 of 2009 -3- Kapurthala on 11.4.1990. Copies of the judgment and decree passed are available on the record as Exs.D1 and D2. Despite the same, this is another round of litigation started by the plaintiff for the same purpose which he sought to achieve by filing the earlier suit. Both the learned Courts below have found as a matter of fact that the plaintiff-appellant was not the owner of the suit property although he was in possession of the same. Pursuant thereto, the authorities have initiated steps to get the suit property vacated from him. Due procedure of law is being followed by the authorities in that direction. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. The findings arrived at by the learned Courts below are based upon proper appreciation of the material evidence brought on the record. These findings cannot be disturbed in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. None of the substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, arises for determination. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) October 07, 2009 JUDGE satish