R.S.A. No. 1237 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1237 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.05.2009 Jasaunda Devi and others ....appellants versus Jaswant Kaur and others ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Sanjeev Walia, Advocate, for the respondents. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 3009-C of 2006 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condoning the delay of 360 days in refiling the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed and the delay of 360 in refiling the appeal is ordered to be condoned. C.M. No. 3010-C of 2006 This is an application under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure for making good the deficiency in court fee. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed and the delay in making good the deficiency in court fee is condoned. R.S.A. No. 1237 of 2006 (O&M) -2- R.S.A. No. 1237 of 2006 The plaintiff/appellants by way of this regular second appeal have challenged the impugned part of the judgment and decree on the ground that the learned Courts below wrongly declined the relief qua khasra No. 385, by holding that the plaintiff/appellants failed to prove their possession. The learned counself for the appellants contends, that the appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - "Whether the impugned part of the judgment declining the relief of injunction qua khasra No. 385 is outcome of mis-reading of evidence?" In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence was produced on record to show that the dispute qua possession of the property in dispute was adjudicated upto the Financial Commissioner on the revenue side, in which the defendant/respondents had failed. Therefore, in view of the documentary evidence, the findings of the learned Courts below are perverse, and cannot be sustained in law. It is, thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that even though the plaintiff/appellants had failed to prove their ownership, they were still entitled to injunction to protect their possession over khasra No. 385. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is totally mis-conceived and not sustainable in law for the reason that the plaintiff/appellants had, in fact, sought injunction by claiming themselves to have become owners by way of adverse possession. Once the relief of ownership with a consequential relief of injunction was R.S.A. No. 1237 of 2006 (O&M) -3- claimed and they have failed to prove their ownership, the consequential relief of injunction could not be granted in their favour. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the learned Courts below in declining the relief qua khasra No. 385. Even otherwise, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff/appellants had filed a suit for injunction against defendant/respondents, which was dismissed and the judgment and decree has attained finality. Therefore, the plaintiff/appellants could not sue for the same relief qua which there was final adjudication between the parties. For the reasons recorded above, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellants. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 12, 2009 R.S.