RSA No.2218 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2218 of 2010 (O&M). Decided on: January 06, 2011. Prakashi Devi. .. Appellant VERSUS Sarda. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for the respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) CM No.14372-C of 2010 Misc. application is allowed. The document Annexure P-2, i.e., copy of mutation is permitted to be taken on record. . . . 1 RSA No.2218 of 2010 (O&M) RSA No.2218 of 2010 Defendant-appellant has preferred this second appeal against the judgment passed by the Courts below in favour of the plaintiff-respondent decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession. The claim of the plaintiff-respondent in her suit for possession was that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land measuring 3 kanals situated in Lal Lakir of village Alipur Khalsa, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal, comprised in Khewat No.295/281, Khatauni No.448, Rectangle No.76, Khasra No. 15(3-0), as depicted in the Jamabandi for the year 1996-97. The plaintiff-respondent claims that he is owner of the suit land which is gair mumkin bara and the same was allotted to the plaintiff-respondent under Indira Vikas Yojna. The defendant-appellant had illegally taken possession and raised construction over the same. It was pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent that the defendant-appellant had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff-respondent to restrain the plaintiff-respondent from dispossessing the appellant from suit land but said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2003 affirmed in appeal vide judgment dated 04.02.2005. The Courts below relying upon the earlier judgment passed against the defendant-appellant in her suit for injunction decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession. Besides this, a decree for permanent injunction was passed against the defendant-appellant restraining her from alienating the suit land, in any manner. . . . 2 RSA No.2218 of 2010 (O&M) The Courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff-respondent is the owner of the plot in dispute, as such, his suit for possession filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has vehemently argued that the defendant-appellant had filed an application for additional evidence with an objective to prove certified copy of registered deed dated 27.7.1984, to show that plot measuring 3 kanals comprised in Khasra No.98/35, in village Alipur Khalsa, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal, was allotted to Om Parkash. Through the additional evidence, the defendant-appellant wanted to prove that the suit property was bearing Kh. No.98/35, changed to No.76/12, after allotment to the defendant-appellant which subsequently was changed to Kh. No.76/15. The application for additional evidence was dismissed by the lower appellate Court holding that the document which was sought to be produced on the record was irrelevant for the adjudication of the controversy and was not required to be brought on file for the purpose of pronouncement of judgment in appeal. Besides this, the lower appellate Court arrived at the conclusion that the facts sought to be proved by additional evidence were not pleaded in the written statement as it was never pleaded by the defendant-appellant that the suit property is not comprised in Khasra No.76/15 and that the Khasra number was in fact 98/35 which was changed subsequently to 76/12 or 76/15. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has contended . . . 3 RSA No.2218 of 2010 (O&M) that in earlier judgment which became final between the parties and is part of the record as EX.P1 indicates that the defendant-appellant had filed a civil suit No.24 of 2001 with title Parkashi Devi Vs. Sarda, claiming to be owner in possession of the suit property seeking to restrain the defendant in the earlier case from interfering in the possession of Parkashi Devi. The Court while deciding issue No.1 held that Sarda was allotted a plot No.76/15 measuring 0 kanal 3 marlas and his name was also incorporated in the revenue record. Parkashi Devi was held to be in possession of the plot as trespasser as such relief of injunction was declined to her. The said judgment has become final vide judgment and decree EX.P3, EX.P4 & EX.P5, affirming the decision of Mr.Ashwani Kumar, the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Karnal. In view of above circumstances, it is apparent that it has been consistently held in the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent as well as in the present suit that Sarda is owner of the suit property. The lower appellate Court has in para 20 of the judgment considered the application for production of additional evidence and passed a speaking order which does not warrant any interference being a well reasoned speaking order. No ground is made out for interference in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE January 06, 2011. rka . . . 4 RSA No.2218 of 2010 (O&M) . . . 5