Regular Second Appeal No. 3181 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 3181 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 3.8.2011 Palwinder Singh and Others ... Appellants Versus Ajit Singh and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate for the appellants. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 8734-C of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 301 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No. 3181 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been preferred by defendants No.1, 5 and 6 to the suit instituted by plaintiff/respondent No.1 Ajit Singh. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 Ajit Singh had instituted the suit for permanent injunction on the ground that he, along with his wife Surjit Kaur and son Avtar Singh, is owner in possession of the land comprised in khasra Nos. 23//18/2 (4-16), 20 (4-18), 23//21/2(6-11) and 23//19(7-9) situated in the area of village Dhanda. He further stated that in khasra Nos. 23//21/1(0-2), 29 (0-18) and 24//25/2 (0-6), there is a Regular Second Appeal No. 3181 of 2011 (O&M) 2 passage, which has been blocked by the defendants to the suit. He further pleaded that the passage had been encroached upon and access to his land and property had been blocked. He sought injunction that the defendants be restrained from raising further construction. It was further pleaded that he had filed an application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. to remove the illegal possession of the defendants out of the aforesaid area of khasra number and to restore the passage in dispute after removal of the obstruction. It was stated that the defendants had collected bricks at the spot, who had raised construction and usurped the passage. Upon notice, the defendants had caused appearance and filed written statement, wherein they denied the averments made in the plaint. They had questioned the maintainability of the suit on various grounds. It was stated that so far as khasra No. 24//25/2 is concerned, the defendants have already made construction and the same is ancestral. After completion of the pleadings, the trial Court had drawn the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the Regular Second Appeal No. 3181 of 2011 (O&M) 3 present suit? OPD 5. Relief”. The parties to the suit led their evidence. The trial Court, vide its judgment dated 30.7.2008, analyzed and dissected the testimonies of the parties and the documents produced by them and thereafter came to a conclusion that so far as khasra No. 24//25/2 is concerned, the defendants had succeeded to rebut the existence of passage as recorded in jamabandi. However, the trial Court held that so far as khasra Nos. 23//21/1(0-2) and 29 (0-18) are concerned, the revenue record shows existence of passage in both these khasra numbers and the defendants had failed to establish that the passage is not existing at the spot. Therefore, the trial Court concluded as under:- “13...Certainly the defendants have got no right to raise further construction in khasra No. 23//21/1(0-2) and 29 (0-18), in which as per the revenue record and as per the plaintiff the passage is existing on the spot leading to his fields...” Thus, the trial Court had partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and partly decided in favour of the defendants. The findings given by the trial Court have been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 19.5.2010. Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has laid much emphasis upon the judgment, rendered by the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Phillaur, in Civil Suit No. 113 of 1992 titled as “Bhag Singh and Others v. Ajit Singh and Others” decided on 20.10.1994, to contend that the plaintiff had lost in the Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 3181 of 2011 (O&M) 4 Court and it has been held that appellant No.1 Bhag Singh and appellant No.2 Santokh Singh are in possession of the suit land. I have perused the judgment, which according to learned counsel is exhibited as Ex.D8. So far as this judgment is concerned, it is only confined to rectangle No. 24 and khasra No. 25/3 (3-13). It has no concern with khasra Nos. 23//21/1(0-2) and 29 (0-18). Thus, the trial Court had considered the judgment threadbare and gave the relief which was due to the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have specifically excluded khasra No. 24//25/2. It had gone to the extent to say that the defendants have succeeded to rebut the presumption of truth attached with the revenue record. Thus, no fault can be found with the concurrent findings of fact returned by both the Courts below. Even though learned counsel has prayed that this Court should tread on the path of re-appreciation and do re- appraisal of the evidence but no part of the testimony or document has been brought to my notice, which would compel this Court to do so, which normally this Court shall refrain in the regular second appeal. Furthermore, no question of law, much less a substantial one, has been raised before me which warrants interference of this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 3, 2011 “DK”