R.S.A. No. 4027 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4027 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.2.2009 State of Haryana & others. .......... Appellants Versus Smt. Tuli ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Madan Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the appellants. Ms. Sweta Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 11978-C of 2008 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal. It has been pleaded in the application that due to administrative exigencies the appeal could not be filed in time and the delay has occurred due to procedural delay. Though the application is opposed, however, it is noticed that the delay stands duly explained and makes out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal. Consequently, the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. is allowed. R.S.A. No. 4027 of 2008 2 R.S.A. No. 4027 of 2008 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 6.1.2007 and 9.5.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-appellant from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff as owner over the land in dispute and further restraining the defendants from cutting and removing the Safeda and Kikkar trees from the land in question, stands decreed. On notice the defendant / appellants appeared but they failed to file the written statement to contest the claim of the plaintiff-respondent, therefore, their defence was ordered to be struck off on 30.8.1999. The order has attained finality. The averments made in the plaint remained uncontroverted and even otherwise the defendants had failed to produce on record any documentary evidence nor could controvert the evidence led by plaintiff / respondent. The learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in dispute, thus, entitled to injunction prayed for. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence are not open to challenge in the regular second appeal. R.S.A. No. 4027 of 2008 3 The appeal, thus, raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. 24.2.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE