R.S.A.No. 727 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 727 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.3.2011 Maman and others ......Appellants Versus Jag Ram and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that he was in cultivating possession of the suit land. The plaintiff being a co-sharer and permanent resident of village was in possession of the shamlat deh land in dispute. The defendants were threatening to dis-possess the plaintiff from the suit land. Defendants No.1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte. Defendant No.3, in his written statement, averred that the suit land had never been treated as shamlat deh nor it had been R.S.A.No. 727 of 2008 (O&M) 2 managed by the gram panchayat. The suit land was being cultivated by 46%. The plaintiff was not a co-sharer in the suit land nor was in possession of the suit land. In fact, the defendants had been cultivating the suit land since the time of their ancestors. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for permanent injunction and possession qua suit land, on the grounds as alleged OPP 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no right to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 10.1.2005. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2007 passed by the District Judge, Rewari. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Both the sides claimed possession qua the suit property. The most crucial document in the present case is Ex.PC, rapat roznamcha, dated 25.10.1997. As per the same, plaintiff was R.S.A.No. 727 of 2008 (O&M) 3 described to be in possession of the suit property. Admittedly Ex.PC has not been set aside till date. It has also transpired during arguments that vide Ex.P-8, order dated 19.6.2003, Tehsildar cum Assistant Collector, IInd Grade dismissed the application moved by the defendants and others qua correction of khasra girdawari. Appeal filed by the defendants and others was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 17.11.2003 Ex.PX7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in revision, the said order was set aside vide order dated 11.1.2007 and the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade and the same is pending for consideration. Thus, admittedly, so far Ex.PC has not been set aside and in these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was liable to be decreed. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 18, 2011 anita