R.S.A No. 1368 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1368 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : April 21, 2010 Mam Raj and another, ...... Appellant (s) v. Dhan Singh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. R.K.Chugh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1. The facts are that the plaintiff had pleaded that he had purchased the land in dispute from one Mahipal who was the proprietor of the village and that the said land was a part of the abadi deh. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that after the sale in his favour, the appellants (among others who had no right, title or interest) could not be permitted to R.S.A No. 1368 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: usurp his possession. The defendants (including the appellants) appeared and filed a written statement claiming-quite surprisingly-that the land in dispute belonged to them. It may be noticed that the defendants included the Gram Panchayat. After filing the written statement, the appellants stopped appearing and consequently were proceeded against ex-parte. After the plaintiff led his evidence in the form of sale deed and examination of his vendor, the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the title of the vendor was not proved. The lower appellate Court, however, reversed this finding holding that the plaintiff had proved the sale deed in his favour and in view of the fact that even the Panchayat had been held to be co-owner of the land in dispute as well as in view of the fact that no evidence was led by the appellants, upset the findings of the trial Court and consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The following questions of law have been proposed :- “ a) Whether without documentary evidence of ownership, one can sell any property of the earth ? b) Whether the trial Court was competent to pass the exparte order against the appellants when appellants No.1 to 7 and 10-14 appeared and filed their joint written statement ? c) Whether proof of ownership is necessary before registration of sale deed ? d) Whether forged and fictitious documents confer any right of title ?” It would be seen that all the questions proposed are such which R.S.A No. 1368 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: should have been raised by the appellants before the competent Court. Even in the grounds of appeal, no reasons have been mentioned as to what prevented the appellants from appearing before the Courts below. Consequently, in my opinion, a litigant who is so casual cannot be allowed to raise a plea which he had a chance to raise and argue before the competent Court. Resultantly, holding the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 21, 2010. JUDGE `kk'