Regular Second Appeal No. 2697 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2697 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 20.10.2011 *** Omkaar Swroop & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the appellants. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Both the Courts below have non-suited the plaintiffs-appellants in the suit filed in the year 2001 wherein they sought restraint order against the respondents-defendants from demolishing their houses. It was their case that they purchased the plots way back in the year 1986 and raised construction thereupon, but the defendants who have no right or authority wants to demolish their houses. The stand taken by the defendants was that the area where the alleged houses of the plaintiffs are constructed, was acquired by the Government vide awards dated 12.3.1991 and 5.3.1992 and no prior approval/ permission was taken for construction of the houses and that the plaintiffs failed to furnish the exact details of the land, therefore, their suit is liable to be dismissed. It emerges out that after framing of issues, the parties were asked to lead evidence, but despite availing number of opportunities, plaintiffs failed to adduce any evidence, consequently their suit was Regular Second Appeal No. 2697 of 2010 2 dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 15.3.2010, so as their appeal on 14.6.2010. It is well settled that civil cases are decided on preponderance of evidence and not merely on the basis of pleadings. The plaintiffs have to stand on their own legs and in absence of any evidence, which plaintiffs failed to adduce even after availing sufficient opportunities, nothing else but dismissal of the suit is warranted. So far as the plea of the plaintiffs claiming parity with the petitioners of CWP No.53 of 1991, disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.2.1992 is concerned, it is apparent that the appellants were not the party to the said petition. That apart by virtue of the aforesaid order only the matter was remanded to the authority to decide the objections of the petitioners therein regarding the acquisition of their land, but as said above, it is not shown as to whether the appellants preferred any objections or any order thereupon was passed or not? Once the plaintiffs failed to adduce any evidence and also failed to prove as to what was done after the aforesaid directions, in the considered opinion of this Court, their suit was rightly dismissed. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine . (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 20,2011 Jiten