R.S.A. No. 592 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 592 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 9.11.2010 Narender and Anr. ... Appellants Versus Ram Karan and Ors. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) C.M. No. 1662 – C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application the delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of accordingly. C.M. No. 1663 – C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of accordingly. R.S.A.No. 592 of 2010 This second appeal by Narender and Mahender – appellants/defendants is against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat, vide which he dismissed the R.S.A. No. 592 of 2010 (O&M) -2- appeal preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 4.12.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gohana, decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for possession of 5 Kanal and 7 marlas of land bearing khasra No.54/1/2 and directing the defendants to hand-over the vacant possession of that suit land to the plaintiffs within two months of the passing of the decree. The plaintiffs claimed the suit land on the basis of their ownership and according to them possession thereof was taken by defendants about 1½ year before filing of the suit and that they had failed in the application filed before the consolidation authorities. The claim of the plaintiffs was contested by the defendants on the ground that they were in possession of the land in dispute as owners since the time of consolidation and the orders passed by the consolidation authorities were illegal, wrong and not binding upon them. In view of the evidence produced by the plaintiffs their suit was decreed by the trial Court and that finding was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/defendants. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the defendants was not able to satisfy this Court that any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Concurrent findings were recorded against the defendants by the lower Court. When no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. November 9, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge