IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3025 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 9, 2011. Chiranji Lal. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Mohinder Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. J.S.Cooner, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 09.03.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 18.05.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Ambala City vide which suit filed by appellant- plaintiff was dismissed. RSA No.3025 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, case of appellant-plaintiff is that he is owner of the property in dispute and that earlier his father was owner of the same, which was mortgaged with respondent-defendant and however, mortgage was not redeemed. Earlier, he filed suit for possession which was dismissed with the observation that appellant-plaintiff could get the land redeemed from the competent court. He also filed a petition for redemption before competent court i.e. before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Ambala and however, the same was dismissed on 10.09.2002. The said order has become final. Regarding the same cause of the action, the present suit has been filed. Both the courts have held that in view of finding of Assistant Collector First Grade, Ambala dated 10.09.2002, the present suit is not maintainable. 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 both the 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 mis-appreciation 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. 2 RSA No.3025 of 2011 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 9, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 3