RSA No.398 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.398 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:17.08.2010 Randhir Kaur & Ors. .... appellants Versus Surender Singh & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate for the appellants **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. CM No.5702-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned, order dated 20.04.2010 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. CM disposed of. CM No.1141-42-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 6 days in filing and 184 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CMs stand disposed of. RSA No.398 of 2010 This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgement and decrees of the courts below whereby their suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that father of the appellant Shamsher Singh was owner in possession of the suit land mentioned in RSA No.398 of 2010 2 para No.1 and 2 of the plaint. Civil Suit No.515 of 1977 filed by respondent No.2 for recovery of Rs.89,445.64 P.in which Shamsher Singh was one of the defendants, was decreed on 11.01.1982 in favour of respondent No.2 with interest at the rate of 16% per annum. Respondent No.2 filed an execution petition for recovery of the aforesaid amount against Shamsher Singh and others. The land in dispute was put to sale on 07.07.1993 in the execution of the aforesaid judgement and decree and the sale was confirmed on 03.10.1994 in favour of respondent No.1. Through this suit, plaintiffs have challenged the aforesaid sale of land on 07.07.1993 in the execution of the judgement and decree, in favour of defendant-respondent No.1 on the ground that respondent No.2 had committed a fraud and had obtained order of sale of the land without mentioning the material facts. The above said suit was contested by defendants- respondents No.1 and 2 by filing their separate written statements. Defendant-respondent No.1 contested the suit raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that he had nothing to do with any previous litigation between the parties and the suit land including the residential house was auctioned by the Court. He, being the highest bidder, was allotted the land and sale certificate was issued in his favour. He was also delivered the possession. LRs of Shamsher Singh including the plaintiffs filed objections against the sale which were rejected up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 to 7 had no right, title or interest in the suit. Defendant-respondent No.2 also contested the suit filing separate written statements taking various preliminary objections and denying the contents of the plaint on merits. After framing the issues the parties were asked to adduce evidence for proving their respective pleas. After consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court RSA No.398 of 2010 3 vide impugned judgement and decree dated 17.08.2006 dismissed the suit filed by the appellants. Appeal preferred by them against the aforesaid judgement and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgement and decree dated 02.01.2009. Still not satisfied, the plaintiffs have approached this Court by filing the instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgement and decrees. It is not in dispute that Civil Suit No.515 of 1977 was decreed in favour of respondent No.2 on 11.01.1982 in which Shamsher Singh, father of the plaintiffs was one of the defendants. It is also not in dispute that in execution of the aforesaid judgement and decree, suit land was put to auction on 07.07.1993 and the aforesaid sale was confirmed on 03.10.1994 in favour of respondent No.1. Again, it is not in dispute that LRs of Shamsher Singh including the plaintiffs filed objections against the aforesaid sale which was dismissed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, learned counsel for the appellants was unable to raise any worthwhile argument in the present appeal. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.+ (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 17.08.2010 neenu