IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 3380 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.3.2009 Pawan Kumar … Appellant versus State of Punjab through its District.Collector,Bathinda, … Respondent Present: Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed. Plaintiff in his plaint pleaded that respondent No.2 namely Administrator, New Mandi Township allotted a plot measuring 20' x 125' in an auction held on 22.11.1975 in the New Mandi Township, Talwandi Sabo, the entire sale price thereof was paid by plaintiff upon which vide letter dated 13.1.1987, the possession was given to him , which after demarcation was taken physically on 28.1.1987 and thus, he became the owner of the same. But instead of getting the sale-deed executed in favour of plaintiff despite his repeated requests, rather defendant No.2 threatened to confiscate the said plot illegally and forcibly. Hence, the suit. Notice of the suit was issued to defendant No.2 who was duly served but chose not to appear and hence was proceeded against ex parte. After conclusion of ex parte evidence, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff being barred by limitation and thus, held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for. Aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.4.2008. Hence, the second appeal by the plaintiff. Both the Courts below while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of limitation have concurrently observed that the present suit was filed on 7.6.2005 whereas the allotment in question was RSA No. 3380 of 2008 -2- dated 22.11.1987 in which the last instalment is shown to have been paid in the year 1997 and thereafter, nothing has been paid by the plaintiff. Thus, it was a case of abandonment on the part of the plaintiff who after the year 1997 did not bother to pay even a single penny to the department. It has also been found by the Courts below that the evidence on record did not depict as to whether the plaintiff got approved the plans of construction from defendant No.2 or whether he completed the building within two years from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. Furthermore, it stands admitted that the full price of the site/plot was not paid. It was found that even if the plaintiff had to pay the amount in instalments, the entire amount was required to be paid by 31.5.1993 but the plaintiff made a payment of Rs.2,000/- lastly on 28.1.1990 and thus, as per record the entire payment has not been made by him and that to within the stipulated period and for that matter, the plaintiff could not seek relief of calling upon the defendants to issue him the No Due Certificate and to execute the sale deed in his favour. The Courts below have also held that the letters Mark D allegedly sent by the plaintiff to the defendants could not be proved by him in evidence and that mere sending of such like letters could in no way extend the limitation period to do a particular fact. The Courts below while dismissing the suit also deprecated the conduct of the defendant-department in not pursuing the matter despite having been served. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. March 24, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE