R.S.A.No. 3773 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3773 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 21.10.2009 Wasawa Singh ......Appellant Versus Dharam Paul .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Dharam Paul filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Fazilka vide judgment and decree dated 9.1.2009. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 1.5.2009. Hence, the present appeal. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate R.S.A.No. 3773 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. The factual matrix of the plaintiff's case as reflected in the plaint, in brief, is that plaintiff is owner in possession of the land in dispute having purchased the same from Swaran Ram son of Chetan Ram vide registered sale deed. Said Swaran Ram had transferred possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. The defendant, without any right or title, threatened to dispossess the plaintiff, hence, the suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit primarily on the ground that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. On merits, the defendant vehemently denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. He asserted his possession over the suit land. He has constructed residential house in killa No.15/2(1-8) of Rect. No.149 having Nishal Sahib, two rooms, one Engine bore and planted various trees. Swaran Ram from whom the plaintiff purchased the suit land, had executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of the defendant. As such, the plaintiff had got no right to purchase the suit land from Swaran Ram. Rest of the averments of the plaint were denied.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were R.S.A.No. 3773 of 2009 (O&M) 3 framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD 5. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendant be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. In order to substantiate his case, plaintiff proved on record sale deed dated 28.8.2000 Ex.P-5 executed by Swaran Ram (previous owner) in his favour. The possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff by said Swaran Ram. As per the revenue record, the plaintiff was described to be in possession of the suit property. Presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandi and the defendant had failed to rebut the same. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure R.S.A.No. 3773 of 2009 (O&M) 4 was filed by the defendant for permission to lead additional evidence to prove the report of the Local Commissioner. However, learned Additional District Judge rightly dismissed the said application vide order Annexure A-1 as the application had been filed at a belated stage. The appellant-defendant had failed to prove the report of the Local Commissioner dated 29.8.2001 before the trial Court. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that despite numerous opportunities, defendant had failed to conclude his evidence and as such, his evidence was closed by order. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. The said finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below cannot be interfered with by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 21, 2009 anita