R.S.A. No. 994 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 994 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.03.2010 Rameshwar Dass ....Appellant Versus Mahender Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate, for Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No.2874-C of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, CM is allowed and the delay of 77 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 994 of 2010 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.8.2009, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for partition, stands decreed. There is no dispute between the parties, that the parties are co-owners of the plot in dispute. Defendant No.7/appellant had contested the suit, on the plea that there was a passage in the property, which was meant for ingress and egress for the use of defendant No.7. This assertion was not proved, as the appellant produced on record Ex.D3, i.e. the certified copy issued by the Municipal Council, Hansi, pertaining to the house of the appellant and Ranjeet Singh. In the site plan so attached, there was no passage shown to be in existence. The plea raised by the appellant was held to be false and R.S.A. No. 994 of 2010 (O&M) -2- rejected. 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 Court below, ordering the partition of the property, is perverse being outcome of misreading of evidence?” In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contended, that the learned Courts below have misread Ex.D3. The site plan produced by the appellant to press his claim. The learned Courts further ignored the evidence, showing that the passage to the property was the only passage which was used for ingress and egress to the appellant's property. It was contended that the judgment and decree, being perverse, be set aside. On consideration, I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. It may be noticed, that in support of the stand taken, appellant had relied upon site plan Ex.D3, wherein no passage was shown. The learned Courts below, therefore, rightly appreciated the evidence to come to the conclusion that the stand of the appellant could not be accepted, in view of the oral and documentary evidence. Once, there was no passage shown in the site plan, it can hardly be said that ingress and egress to the house of the appellant has been stopped by way of the judgment and decree, under challenge. Consequently, finding no merit in this appeal, it is ordered to be dismissed in limine. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 05, 2010 R.S.