R.S.A. No. 2003 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 2003 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 25.11.2010 Gurjit Singh ... Appellant Versus M.C.Jalandhar ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate, for the appellant. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This is second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff – Gurjit Singh against the judgment and decree dated 2.3.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide which first appeal preferred by him against the judgment and decree dated 6.2.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jalandhar, dismissing his suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the shops in dispute and that the respondent/defendant has no concern, right or title therein and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from claiming ownership therein and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to sanction site plan in accordance with law for making addition alteration therein, was dismissed. The case of the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, is that he is owner in possession of the shops in dispute. Notices dated 10.2.1997 and 11.2.1996 were issued to him by the defendant which were duly replied. The defendant had no right to demolish the shops and he is entitled to get site plan sanctioned for making addition and alteration therein in accordance R.S.A. No. 2003 of 2009 (O&M) -2- with law. He had challenged the validity of the said two notices in the civil suit bearing No.25/97 titled Gurjeet Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation, which was decided on 25.3.2002 and he was held to be owner of the shop. The suit was contested by the defendants. In the written statement they denied the contentions of the plaintiff and pleaded that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property in dispute and has filed a false, frivolous and fictitious suit. The same is not maintainable and the plaintiff is not entitled to any such relief. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to this court with clean hands?OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act?OPD 5. Relief. After going through the evidence and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, learned trial Court decided issues No. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff and issues No. 3 and 4 in his favour and resultantly dismissed his suit. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that R.S.A. No. 2003 of 2009 (O&M) -3- previously the plaintiff filed a suit which was decided in his favour and on the basis of the judgment given in that suit, the plaintiff was required to be declared as owner of the shops in dispute and that both the lower Courts committed illegality while recording a finding to the contrary. According to him, substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal. The operative part of the judgment passed in the previous suit has been reproduced in the grounds of appeal. It cannot be inferred therefrom that the plaintiff was to be held the owner of the shops in dispute in the previous suit, which was for permanent injunction simplicitor. On the basis of the evidence so produced, concurrent findings were recorded by both the lower Courts. It is not the case that there is any such misreading of evidence while recording those findings or those suffer from any perversity. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly. November 23, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge