Regular Second Appeal No. 1032 of 2007 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Regular Second Appeal No. 1032 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 2, 2008 Manohri and others ... Appellants Versus Meena and others .. Respondents CORAM : Hon`ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal. Present : Shri Hardip Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri R.S.Rana, Advocate, for the respondents. PRITAM PAL , J. This Regular Second Appeal by defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) is directed against judgment and decree dated 23.8.2005 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura , whereby a suit for possession relating to Gair Mumkin Ruri measuring 0-2 Biswas, comprised in Khewat/Khatoni No. 147/496, Khasra No. 614 and for recovery of mesne profits at the rate of Rs.200/- per month, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, was decreed, to Regular Second Appeal No. 1032 of 2007 2 ... the effect that the plaintiff-respondents are entitled to possession of the aforesaid khasra number in dispute and the remaining suit for recovery of mesne profit, as claimed above, was dismissed. Thereafter the first appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come-up in this appeal. The only point of argument, raised on behalf of the appellants is that in fact, the respondents had failed to establish identity of the suit- property and that even otherwise, in an earlier suit between the parties, the matter in-issue had already been decided finally so, the suit filed by the respondents was barred by the principle of res judicata. The aforesaid contention has been repelled by learned counsel for the respondents. During the course of arguments, it has been transpired that the earlier suit between the parties, was in fact, with regard to some other property, shown by letters `ABCD' whereas, in the instant case, it has been specifically pleaded in the written statement and also submitted during the course of arguments, that the suit property is not comprised in khasra No. 614, as alleged by the respondents. With this point of argument raised on behalf of the appellants, this Court finds no force in the earlier plea of argument, put-forth on their behalf, inasmuch as, in the case in hand, the suit of the respondents has been decreed with regard to khasra No. 614, which in the revenue record was earlier shown to be in their (respondents') possession. According to the respondents, the possession of the aforesaid disputed khasra number, was taken forcibly by the appellants in the year 1998. Regular Second Appeal No. 1032 of 2007 3 ... In this view of the matter, no interference is called for in any of the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellants could not make out any substantial question of law, for consideration by this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at the motion stage. [ PRITAM PAL ] July 02, 2008. JUDGE som