IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.2295 of 1980 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.12.2009 Kartar Singh. -----Appellant Vs. Chand Singh & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL Present:- None for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Bansal, Advocate for the respondents. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against dismissal of the suit by the Courts below. 2. Suit of the plaintiff was that he was owner of the land measuring 33 kanals and 10 marlas allotted to him during consolidation proceedings. Further claim was that he was entitled to 4 kanals and 4 marlas of land, the possession of which was wrongly taken. He was also entitled to possession of 3 kanals and 2 marlas of land. He challenged mutation sanctioned on the basis of order of Additional Director, Consolidation dated 22.1.1970. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that by order dated 19.12.1962 passed by the RSA No.2295 of 1980 Settlement Officer, in consolidation proceedings, which had become final, rights of the parties have been determined and the said order was reiterated by the Additional Director, Consolidation in its order dated 22.1.1970, which could not be reopened in the suit filed by the plaintiff. 3. By filing an application, the appellant has proposed following substantial questions of law:- 1) Whether the findings of the courts below are perverse and against the provisions of law and are sustainable in the eyes of law? 2) Whether the order dated 22.1.1970 passed by Ld. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings is legal and valid and has been passed against the principles of natural justice, without giving any opportunity of hearing? 3) Whether an application u/s 42 of the Act is maintainable after the period of 6 months from the order and whether the order passed after 7 years is beyond the period of limitation? 4) Whether the findings of the ld. Trial Court are not based on issuewise findings and in such situation, whether the judgment and decree is sustainable in the eyes of law? 5) Whether the wrong appreciation of facts and law are sustainable in the eyes of law?” 4. Inspite of repeated calls, none appears for the appellant. 2 RSA No.2295 of 1980 5. Learned counsel for the respondent states that no substantial question of law arises. 6. The appeal is pending for the last 29 years. In absence of counsel for the appellant, points revised cannot be adjudicated nor adjournments can be repeatedly granted. The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. 7. A copy of this order be sent to the appellant. December 08, 2009 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ashwani JUDGE 3