RSA No.2667 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2667 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 26, 2011 Surinder Singh and another .....Appellants v. Gurmej Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.I.S.Brar, Advocate for the appellants. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.7263-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 694 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.7262-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.2667 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 8.1.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 27.8.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Batala, dismissing suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for decree for RSA No.2667 of 2011(O&M) -2- permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering in their possession over the land in dispute. On notice being issued, defendants denied that appellants- plaintiffs are in possession over the land in dispute. Rather the plea has been taken that they have been continuing in actual possession of the same for the last more than 20 years and that their possession has also been recorded in the revenue record. Learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that appellants-plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the property in dispute and rather respondents-defendants have been continuing in possession over the same and hence, suit filed by appellants- plaintiffs was dismissed. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiff that both the Courts below have committed illegality in dismissing the suit filed by them and that rather they have been continuing in possession over the property in dispute. However, plea cannot be accepted. As per entries in the jamabandi and khasra girdawari, respondents- defendants have been recorded as owner in possession of the property in dispute. Even the appellants-plaintiffs admitted in the cross-examination that the revenue entries regarding possession are in favour of respondents- defendants. No steps were taken by father of appellants-plaintiffs, i.e., the original plaintiff-Shangara Singh, during his lifetime to get the revenue entries corrected on the plea that he is in possession. Revenue entries were corrected as per order dated 22.6.1988. The said order has not been RSA No.2667 of 2011(O&M) -3- challenged by the present appellants-plaintiffs. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 26.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge