IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A.No. 319 of 1997. Reserved on : 23.5.2008 Decided on: 6.6.2008. Hari Ram …Appellant. Versus Krishanu Ram & Others ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.8.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.22 of 1989. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the Second Appeal are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’ for convenience sake) had filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendants’ for convenience sake) from raising any construction on the suit land comprised in Khasra No.140/75/2, measuring 8 biswas or raising any construction on Khasra No.140/75/1, measuring 2 biswas situated at Village Gasaur. The plaintiff had claimed that he was owner in ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 possession of the suit land and the defendants had started collecting the construction material for raising the construction over the suit land comprised in Khasra No.140/75/1 measuring 2 biswas. The defendants had contested and resisted the suit filed by the plaintiff. They had filed written statement. The plaintiff had filed a detailed replication. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence i.e. oral and documentary, dismissed the suit on 30.12.1988. The plaintiff being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the judgment and decree dated 30.12.1988, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.12.1988 before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur on 10.3.1989. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur dismissed the appeal on 13.8.1997. The plaintiff has filed this Regular Second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.8.1997. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether permanent injunction can be denied when the plaintiff/appellant proved on record his ownership and possession ? 2. whether the previous litigation as discussed in the judgment has any impact on the instant case in question in view of the fact that the cause of action arose to the plaintiff after the year 1983 ? 3. Whether the ld. Courts below have mis- appreciated and misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence on record ? Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate had strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and Appellate Court below are not sustainable in the eyes of law . Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate had supported the judgments and decrees 3 passed by the learned Courts below. He strongly contended that the matter had already been conclusively decided pertaining to same piece of land in Civil Suit No.3/1 of 1979. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. Since all the substantial questions of law are inter- connected, to avoid repetition, these are taken up together. The plaintiff has produced three witnesses including himself. PW-3 Shri Dhayan Singh is the Patwari of the area. He had categorically admitted that when he visited the spot, he saw the pillars affixed as per the orders of the learned Judge and the defendants were carrying out the construction within the area falling in the pillars. PW-1, Hari Ram was not sure about the exact location of the land as noted by the trial Court. The statement of PW-2, Sh. Kalapatu does not give any impression that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. Defendant No.1 had appeared as DW-1 and had supported the contentions raised in the written statement. DW-2, Sh. B.S. Kaundal, Advocate had earlier represented Sh. Bhadu predecessor-in-interest of the defendants in Civil Suit No.3/1 of 1979. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to Exhibits DA, DB, DC, and Ext. DD to substantiate that the present controversy had already been decided conclusively by the learned Sub Judge in Civil Suit No.3/1 of 1979. It is evident from the pleadings of the parties more particularly Ex.DA and Ext.DB that Khasra No.73 was in dispute in Civil Suit No.3/1 of 1979. Shri Bhadu predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.3/1 of 1979 and the present plaintiff was defendant in this suit. The learned Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence while coming to the conclusion that the land in dispute in the 4 present case and in the earlier suit bearing No.3/1 of 1979 is the same. It is evident from the oral as well as documentary evidence that the successor- in-interest of Bhadu i.e. the defendants are sole owners in possession of the suit land. There is no question of law much less any substantial question of law involved in this Regular Second Appeal. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. June 6, 2008. (GR)