RSA No.2763 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2763 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 7, 2011 Joginder Singh .....Appellant v. Jai Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.J.S.Bhandohal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 13.3.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which appeal filed by present appellant against judgment and decree, dated 19.3.2009, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Fatehgarh Sahib, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant-defendant from interfering into their peaceful possession of the suit property. The suit property is described as khasra no.132(1-8) situated in village Sidhwan. Both the Courts below decreed the suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs on the basis of entries in the revenue record, i.e., jamabandi and khasra girdawari. It has been observed by both the Courts below that no sufficient evidence was adduced to rebut the presumption attached to the entries in the jamabandi. It has been RSA No.2763 of 2011(O&M) -2- contended by learned counsel for the appellant that application filed by appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for seeking permission to lead additional evidence for examining Local Commissioner Mandeep Singh JE has been illegally declined by learned first appellate Court. However, plea cannot be accepted as sufficient reasons have been given by learned District Judge, while dismissing the application. Sufficient opportunities were availed by appellant to adduce evidence before learned trial Court and, however, the witness was not examined. Moreover, Local Commissioner was appointed to determine the age of the building in question and it was not for him to report regarding the possession of the respective parties over the premises in dispute. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the Courts below 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 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. 7.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge