R.S.A.No. 3326 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3326 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.1.2011 Nasib Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Parkasho and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.J.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.M.S.Khaira, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.S.Sewak, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Mr.J.S.Toor, Advocate, for respondent no.4. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed suit for permanent injunction alleging that the defendants be restrained from blocking passage comprised in khasra nos. 42//4/1/1 (0-9) and 5/1/1 (0-5) situated within the revenue limits of Kharar. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the Civil R.S.A.No. 3326 of 2007 (O&M) 2 Judge (Jr.Divn.) Kharar vide judgment and decree dated 2.8.2002. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were set aside by the Additional District Judge cum Presiding Officer Fast Track Court, Rupnagar vide judgment and decree dated 22.7.2004. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that the plaintiffs had purchased share of Mohinder Kaur and during partition proceedings, they had been allotted separate khasra numbers and had constructed their houses except Sarwan Singh (deceased) from whom defendants No.2 and 3 had purchased the plot. Khasra numbers in dispute had been kept as a passage to enable the plaintiffs to approach their houses. In the said passage, the Municipal Committee- defendant no.4 had laid sewerage pipes, water supply pipes and had constructed drains on both sides of the passage. Defendants No.1 to 3, in their written statement, averred that the suit land had never been used as passage but was owned by the said defendants. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1.Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether suit is maintainable? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Court? OPD 4. Relief. R.S.A.No. 3326 of 2007 (O&M) 3 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, plaintiffs did not examine any witness in support of their case. Counsel for the plaintiffs closed the evidence of the plaintiffs by placing on record documents mark A to E. The defendants, on the other hand, had led their evidence. Suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 2.8.2002. However, in appeal filed by defendants No. 1 to 3, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by Additional District Judge cum Presiding Officer Fast Track Court, Rupnagar vide judgment and decree dated 22.7.2004. The learned Additional District Judge had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs had failed to appear in the witness box in support of their case. Hence, the assertion made by the plaintiffs in the plaint that the defendants were blocking the passage in dispute was not established by the plaintiffs by stepping into the witness box and deposing to this effect. Since the plaintiffs did not appear in the witness box, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them The joint land between the parties was partitioned on the basis of agreement dated 16.2.1994. Khasra numbers in question fell to the share of Parkash Kaur and Gurdev Kaur in the partition proceedings. The said proceedings were never challenged by the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second R.S.A.No. 3326 of 2007 (O&M) 4 appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 12, 2011 anita