C.M. Nos. 1799 of 2010 and 2399 of 2009 1 and LPA No. 895 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos. 1799 of 2010 and 2399 of 2009 and LPA No. 895 of 2009 Date of decision: 12.08.2010 Sarwan Singh son of Lal Singh and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Punjab and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: None. *** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 1799of 2010 Application is allowed. Document, Annexure P-7, attached with the application is taken on record. LPA No. 895 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 09.03.2009 dismissing CWP No. 17550 of 2007 filed by the petitioners. In that writ petition, the petitioners had impugned, order dated 23.01.2006 rejecting their prayer for restoration of water course allegedly demolished by respondent No. 4. Further challenge was made to an order dated 17.05.2007, vide which their appeal was dismissed. The learned Single Judge, when dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners, has noted a fact that the petitioners earlier filed a C.M. Nos. 1799 of 2010 and 2399 of 2009 2 and LPA No. 895 of 2009 civil suit and failed. Taking note of the above-said observation, on 11.01.2010, following order was passed by this Court:- “ At the request of counsel for the appellants, to enable him to place on record a copy of the order of the Civil Court, dismissing the suit, list again on 8.3.2010.” In response thereto, copy of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court on 05.02.2009 has been placed on record, which clearly indicates that the controversy involved in the civil suit was virtually the same which is now agitated in this appeal. During the course of proceedings in the Civil Court, the petitioners failed to establish, by leading any evidence, that any water channel was in existence. When they failed to prove the above-said fact, the suit was dismissed. In view of the facts mentioned above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. In view of the dismissal of main appeal, there is no need to pass any order in C.M. No. 2399 of 2009 for condonation of delay of 117 days in filing the appeal. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE August 12, 2010 pj C.M. Nos. 1799 of 2010 and 2399 of 2009 3 and LPA No. 895 of 2009