R.S.A. No. 211 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 211 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 16.3.2010 Meet Ram (dead) .......... Appellant Versus Satinder Pal ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2007, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which suit filed by the plaintiff / appellant seeking injunction against the defendant / respondent from running a saw mill in residential area stands dismissed. The learned lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal by recording as under :- 15. Our Hon'ble High Court, in the rules and order framed for the governing and administration of justice, clearly mentioned that plaint should be accompanied by a site plan. If the disputed property is not bearing any khasra number or special particulars of the disputed property, the head note of the plaint of the plaintiff and the present suit is totally silent about the location and situation of the saw mill of the R.S.A. No. 211 of 2008 2 defendant. It was the burden duty of the plaintiff to give the complete description and the location and situation of the saw mill of the defendant. Moreover, the plaintiff has mentioned in para 2 of the plaint that saw mill is installed by the defendant has been shown as red in the site plan attached with the plaint but no site plan neither is available submitted with the plaint nor any such site plan has been got exhibited or proved from any witnesses, meaning thereby that without site plan and without mentioning the exact location and situation of the saw mill of the defendant, the suit of the plaintiff cannot proceed further at all and it is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable as well as plaintiff has no locus standi or cause of action. It is nowhere mentioned in any document produced by the plaintiff on the file to prove that saw mill of the defendant is adjoining the house of the plaintiff. No report of any building expert has been brought on the file by the plaintiff to prove that his house suffered extensive damage by the working of the saw mill of the defendant rather, the defendant has brought sufficient and dependable documentary evidence on the file to prove that his saw mill is situated outside the village abadi surrounded by poultry farms, card board factory, cremation ground, pipe factory, soap factory, feed factory and gas factory etc. The defendant has brought jamabandi Ex. D3 on the file coupled with Aks Shajra Ex. D4 to prove that the house of the plaintiff nowhere adjoins the saw mill of the defendant. The saw mill of the defendant is R.S.A. No. 211 of 2008 3 installed in khasra no. 575, meaning thereby that there is not an iota of evidence at all from the side of the plaintiff to prove that his house adjoins the saw mill of the defendant and his house suffered cracks or damage by working of the saw mill. Had the saw mill of the defendant causing any inconvenience nuisance or any mental or physical affects to the inhabitants of the village then the village Panchayat must have moved against the defendant for shifting his saw mill. Rather, Kanshi Ram DW3, Sarpanch of village Jandhusingha appeared in defence of the defendant to shatter the version of the plaintiff. Thus, keeping in view my discussion above in detail, I return findings of all these issues in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.” Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, learned counsel for the appellant contends, that this appeal, raises the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is perverse, inasmuch as the factum of site plan was duly pleaded and an issue was also framed thereon?” In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended, that the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below, are outcome of misreading of pleadings and evidence, and is based on presumption. The plaintiff / appellant had specifically, pleaded in the plaint, that as per the site plan, the saw mill being run by the respondent adjoins R.S.A. No. 211 of 2008 4 the house of the plaintiff / appellant, and furthermore due to its running cracks have developed in his house. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the jamabandi Ex. D3 proved on record proved the factum of saw mill being run in the residential area. The learned Courts below, therefore, committed an error in non-suiting, the plaintiff by recording the reasoning, referred to above. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. In spite of specific pleading in the plaint, no site plan was attached with the plaint, as is clear from the record of the learned trial Court, which was summoned and seen. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below are on appreciation of evidence, which cannot be said to be outcome of misreading of evidence, nor it can be said that the plaintiff / appellant was able to prove the case by referring to the site plan as no site plan was attached in spite of specific pleading. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, deserve to be noticed to be rejected. The substantial question of law raised, is answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. 16.3.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE