Regular Second Appeal No. 955 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 955 of 2009 Date of decision: December 10, 2009 Piara Lal Mehndiratta …..APPELLANT Versus Om Parkash …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present: Mr D.K.Bhatti, Advocate T.P.S.MANN, J. Suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of Rs. 4 lakh alongwith interest and costs, was dismissed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar on 21.9.2006. Even the first appeal filed by him was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar on 6.11.2008. He is now before this Court by way of second appeal. The plaintiff claimed to be a respectable person and retired as Inspector from Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. He had a dispute with the defendant regarding stair case of property No.EE-328, Mohalla Panj Peer, Jalandhar. The defendant had been harassing him and causing mental, financial and physical harm by filing various cases against him since 1980 and losing all of them. Despite the same, he had been filing the appeals Regular Second Appeal No. 955 of 2009 -2- and revisions, but remained unsuccessful in all of them. Once of the suit was withdrawn by him after five years of its filing. The plaintiff had engaged lawyers, paid fee to them, filed written statements and replies, besides adducing evidence. In the process, he had been made to spend huge amount. All the cases had been filed by the defendant intentionally, maliciously and malafidely, knowing the same to be false. Though he was entitled to much more amount, yet due to the fact that he was unable to pay the heavy Court fee, the plaintiff confined his claim to Rs.4 lakh for being awarded to him as damages against the defendant. While opposing the present suit, the defendant contended that there was a dispute regarding the stair case between the parties. It was part of House No.EE-328/1 and the only passage for egress and ingress, whereas the plaintiff had separate and independent passage to his house. The plaintiff forcibly constructed room over the roof and Deori belonging to the defendant and then claimed the stair case to be common. There was no opening of the wall on the Eastern side of the stair case. It was denied that the suits were filed to harass the plaintiff or with malafide motive or malice, as every person was free to fight for his right in the property, claimed to be his ownership and nothing was illegal in it. It was a different thing that the Regular Second Appeal No. 955 of 2009 -3- defendant failed in his various suits but the litigation could not be termed as malicious. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the damages as claimed. In one of the suit bearing No.76/92 filed by the defendant against the plaintiff for partition of his share in the stair case or auction thereof, the applications moved by both the parties for purchase of other's share were dismissed. The defendant then filed Civil Revision No.1686 of 1997 in this Court, wherein a compromise was arrived at, whereunder the defendant was to deposit Rs. 1 lakh, followed by the plaintiff executing the sale deed in respect of the stair case in favour of the defendant. The said amount of Rs. 1 lakh was deposited by the defendant and consequently, the sale deed was executed by the plaintiff. It, thus, shows that there was a genuine dispute between the parties relating to the stair case. As the plaintiff after receiving the amount of Rs.1 lakh executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant, he cannot now turn around to claim any damages on account of the various litigations initiated by the defendant against him. Moreover, while deciding various suits, concerned Courts had not imposed any costs or fine upon the defendant. It may also be not out of place to mention here that the first five suits stood decided up to 29.2.1992 and any such Regular Second Appeal No. 955 of 2009 -4- claim for damages in respect of their filing could have been instituted within a period of three years from 29.2.1992. Though the 6th suit was decided only a couple of months before the filing of the present suit, yet it stood settled by way of compromise. As such, no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on account of the decision of the 6th suit. Therefore, the filing of the present suit on 11.11.1999 was beyond the period of three years of the decision of the first five suits and, thus, barred by limitation. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below were based upon correct appreciation of the material evidence available on the record. These findings cannot be described as either perverse or suffering from any illegality or infirmity. Therefore, they cannot be reversed and that too, in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. None of the substantial questions of law, as framed by the appellant, arises for determination. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. December 10, 2009. (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE