RSA No.4377 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4377 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 4-3-2009 Hoshiar Singh and another ....Appellants VERSUS Sehaj Ram and Others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. Rajesh Malik, Advocate, for the appellants. MAHESH GROVER, J. (Oral) This is plaintiffs' second appeal directed against the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 11-10-2007 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 26-3-2008. The plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possessions/ownership of plot No.13-A and also some portion which was in front of this plot. It was pleaded by them that they are in possession of this area as reflected in the site plan and marked as ABCD and were using the same for tethering cattle etc. The plea of adverse possession was also raised. The respondents denied the averments of the plaintiffs- RSA No.4377 of 2008 (O&M) -2- appellants and denied their possession over the suit property. The respondents, however, pleaded that they were in possession of the suit property and raised their construction thereon. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owner in possessions of site marked with letters ABCD by way of adverse possession? OPP. 2. Whether the defendants are threading the plaintiffs to interfere into their peaceful possession over the site marked with letters ABCD, as alleged, if so to what effect. OPP. 3. Whether the issues No.1 & 2 proved then the plaintiffs are entitled for injunction as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPP 5. Relief. The learned trial Court and First Appellate Court thereafter came to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to establish their case. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings of the Courts below to contend that findings are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. It was contended that they are in possession of the suit property for the last 20-25 years and the possession regarding plot No.13-A was derived from the partition suit which was decided in the year 1948. RSA No.4377 of 2008 (O&M) -3- I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments which reveal that it is a case where appellants have miserably failed to produce any cogent evidence to substantiate his case. Apart from the oral evidence, no other evidence worth the same has been led by the appellants. One of the plaintiffs did not even offer himself for cross-examination after getting the statement recorded in chief. In this view of the matter, when the Courts were deprived of the benefit of relevant evidence which could establish the case of the appellants, the findings recorded by both the Courts below cannot be termed to be perverse so as to warrant interference in a Regular Second Appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for the determination of this Court. Dismissed. That apart the appeal is also barred by delay of 154 days which is largely unexplained. (MAHESH GROVER) 4-3-2009 JUDGE manju