R.S.A. No. 1909 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1909 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.05.2009 Lakhi Chand and others ....appellants versus Shankar Ram and another ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Sanjeev Walia, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 5068-C of 2005 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condoning the delay of 69 days in refiling the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed and the delay of 69 days in refiling the appeal is ordered to be condoned. R.S.A. No. 1909 of 2005 This judgment shall dispose of R.S.A. No. 1909 of 2005 titled Lakhi Chand and others Vs. Shankar Ram and another and R.S.A. No. 1238 of 2006 titled Hari Ram Vs. Lakhi Chand and others, as both the appeals arise from the same judgment and decree. R.S.A. No. 1909 of 2005 (O&M) -2- For brevity sake, facts are being taken from R.S.A. No. 1909 of 2005. The plaintiff/appellants filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendant/respondents from interfering in peaceful possession over khasra Nos. 379, 380 and 385 on the ground, that the plaintiff/appellants were owners in possession of the property in dispute and, therefore, were entitled to protect their possession. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendant/respondents had also filed a suit for declaration and possession, claiming injunction restraining the plaintiff/appellants herein from interfering in the peaceful possession of the defendant/respondents. The learned Courts below partly decreed the suit with respect to khasra Nos. 379 and 380, whereas injunction qua khasra No. 385 was declined. The said order has been upheld by this Court in R.S.A. No. 1706 of 2005, vide order of even date. The learned counsel for the appellants contends, that the appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - "Whether merely in view of the judgment and decree passed against the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff/appellants, suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff/appellants could be dismissed?' In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Courts below erred in law in ignoring the previous judgment inter se parties, therefore, the judgment and decree deserved to be set aside. This plea cannot be accepted, in view of the decision of this Court in R.S.A. No. 1706 of 2005 wherein defendant/respondents have R.S.A. No. 1909 of 2005 (O&M) -3- been held to be in possession of khasra Nos. 379 and 380, as owner thereof and the plaintiff/appellants have been restrained from interfering in their peaceful possession. The relief qua khasra No. 385 was declined. The learned Courts below in the present case also have granted injunction qua khasra No. 385, in favour of plaintiff/appellants. No ground is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Courts below, in view of judgment and decree passed in R.S.A. No. 1706 of 2005. The substantial question of law raised is answered against the appellants. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 12, 2009 R.S.