IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2627 of 2008 Date of Decision : September 22, 2009 Balbir Singh ....Appellant Versus Surjit Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by the appellant for the grant of permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendants from forcibly and illegally dispossessing him from the suit land and from placing any obstacle and resistance in the construction by the appellant over the same, was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, on 16.4.2007, which judgment and decree was upheld by the learned District Judge, Amritsar, on 19.3.2008 when the first appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. He is now before this Court by way of second appeal filed by him under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. R.S.A. No. 2627 of 2008 -2- After framing of the issues, the case was fixed for the appellant to produce his evidence. The appellant did not examine any witness and simply tendered into evidence jamabandi Ex.P-1 and site plan Ex.P-2. As the appellant neither examined any witness in support of his plaint nor himself stepped into the witness box, the averments made by him in the plaint remained as such and did not assume the colour of evidence. The jamabandi Ex.P-1 did not disclose his exclusive possession over the suit land. No evidence was brought on the record to indicate that the suit land came to the exclusive share of the appellant on the basis of a family settlement. There was also no evidence that the defendants- respondents ever threatened to stake claim to the suit land. In view of the fact that there was no evidence brought on the record by the plaintiff-appellant, the learned Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit. No relief can be granted to the appellant and, that too, in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. The various substantial questions of law, as formulated by the learned counsel for the appellant, do not arise for determination. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 22, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1