RSA No.1029 of 2010(O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.1029 of 2010(O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 21.09.2010 **** Khazani and others . . . . Appellants Vs. Goverdhan and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) CM No.3020-C-2010 Allowed as prayed for. RSA No.1029 of 2010(O&M) The plaintiffs are in second appeal against judgment and decree of both the Courts below whereby suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the learned courts below have not appreciated document Ex.D1 namely, previous litigation between the same parties, which was initiated at the instance of Goverdhan/defendant No.1. He submits that in that suit Goverdhan/defendant No.1 prayed for permanent injunction claiming him to be in possession of the suit property but he lost up to this Court in RSA No.1581 of 2003 in which it has been held that he is not found to be in possession of the suit property. However, the question involved in this case is that for the purpose of seeking injunction the plaintiff has to prove his possession over the suit property? RSA No.1029 of 2010(O&M) - 2 - There is no evidence on record except oral evidence to say that the plaintiffs are in possession whereas admittedly they are residing somewhere else. Moreover, it is also not the case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the property. In view of this fact, plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession and the learned Courts below have rightly declined the relief sought by the plaintiffs. In view thereof, I do not find any question of law much less substantial involved as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in this appeal and as such the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 JUDGE Vivek