IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3434 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.12.2010 Om Parkash ......Appellant(s) Versus Rajinder and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Anil Ghangas, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Parmod Parmar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for possession of the suit land filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed and the appellant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land. On 24.9.2009, counsel for the appellant submitted before this Court that his client was ready and willing to compensate the plaintiff- respondent for the suit land. Notice of motion was issued to respondent No.1. The parties were also present before this Court. However, on 8.2.2010, this Court found that compromise was not possible. On 20.9.2010, during the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the dispute relates to only 10 yards of land. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, counsel for the parties again sought an adjournment to make one more effort for amicable settlement. The parties are present in Court today. An effort has been made for amicable settlement, however, the same has failed. RSA No.3434 of 2009 (O&M) -2- The value of the property shown in this appeal has been affixed at ` 200/- by the appellant. Even Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no appeal shall lie from any decree when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees. Thus, keeping in view the meager value of the property shown in this appeal and the fact that both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding to the effect that the appellant has encroached upon the land of the plaintiff-respondent and further that the dispute whether the appellant has encroached upon the suit land which belongs to the plaintiff-respondent being a pure question of fact, there is no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. December 21, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE