IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2209 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.11.2008. Ram Kumar and others ....Appellants Versus Smt. Anchai and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate. Mr.Jaswant Jain, Advocate. RAJESH BINDAL, J. **** On October 8, 2007 this Court issued notice of motion in the present appeal on the statement of counsel for appellant which was recorded while passing the following order:- “The learned counsel contends that the appellants are throughout in possession over the suit land and the mutation proceedings continued till the year 1995. Suit for declaration was filed by the appellants in the year 1993 i.e. after decision of the mutation proceedings by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade and as such the suit was within limitation but the trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation as well. Notice of motion for 3.12.2007. Meanwhile status-quo be maintained with regard to possession over the suit land. '' A perusal of the above order shows that learned counsel for the appellants stated that the mutation proceedings continued till the year 1995 whereas according to counsel for respondents the mutation proceedings attained finality on 28th June 1953 and it was on the basis thereof the suit was held to be barred by limitation by both the Courts below. Notice of motion was got issued on a mis- stating at that time that the mutation proceedings were pending till RSA No.2209 of 2007 -2- the year 1995. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to explain same by stating a fact that the application was filed on 24th June 1993 objecting to the mutation which was entered in the name of respondents on 26th May 1953 and it was this application which was pending. This document which is sought to be referred before this Court was never produced in evidence either before the trial Court or before the lower Appellate Court despite the fact that one of the ground on which the suit was dismissed, was limitation. The statement made at the time of motion hearing on the basis of which notice of motion was issued is not forming the part of the Court record. The fact that notice of motion was got issued by misstating a fact is sufficient reason to deny the appellant hearing of the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 18.11.2008. JUDGE Reema