IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3024 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 19, 2011. Sanjay Kumar. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Surinder Bir Singh. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 11.03.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Ambala accepting appeal filed by the present respondent-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 15.01.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ambala vide which suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was dismissed. RSA No.3024 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed suit for recovery of `22,400/- on account of rent and interest on the plea that present appellant- defendant was tenant under respondent-plaintiff in the shop in dispute on payment of rent of `625/- per month. As he remained in arrears of rent from 01.03.1999, respondent-plaintiff filed ejectment petition bearing no.55 of 1999. Appellant-defendant tendered rent for the months of January and February, 1999 amounting to `1,250/- and thereafter, appellant-defendant proceeded ex parte and ex parte ejectment order was passed against present appellant. Thereafter, the possession of the premises in dispute was delivered to respondent-plaintiff by the bailiff of the court in execution of order of ejectment. Respondent-plaintiff claimed arrears of rent from March, 1999 to 24.01.2003 when the possession was delivered to him by bailiff in execution of order of ejectment. Suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. However, in appeal the suit was decreed by learned first appellate Court by reversing the judgment and decree and respondent- plaintiff was held entitled to recover an amount of `22,400/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that some articles belonging to appellant-defendant were lying in the shop and however, learned first appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree has not valued the said articles. However, the said articles were 2 RSA No.3024 of 2011 handed over to respondent-plaintiff on Superdari. Hence, the appellant can recover/claim the said articles in appropriate proceeding. Appellant has failed to prove the plea that possession was already delivered as a result of oral agreement entered into between the parties on 02.03.2000. Impugned judgment and decree was passed by learned first appellate Court by taking date of handing over possession to respondent-plaintiff as the date mentioned by bailiff of the Court i.e. 24.01.2003. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned first appellate Court in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Finding recorded by learned first appellate Court is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 19, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3