RSA No. 2469 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2469 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18.5.2011. Smt. Sushila Devi .......Appellant Vs. Municipal Council, Bhiwani ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing her from the suit land. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that she was owner in possession of the suit land measuring 11 Marlas i.e. 11/400 share of land measuring 20 Kanals 0 Marlas bounded as under:- East - Public street West - Place of Peer North - Land of Mandir South - Passage Plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Bedi Devi and others vide sale deed dated 8.5.2006 for a consideration of ` 97,500/-. RSA No. 2469 of 2010 -2- Defendant, in its written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the plaintiff had no concern with the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the GHER measuring 0 Kanal 11 Marlas being 11/400 share of the land measuring 20 Kanals 0 Marla comprised in Khewat No. 1982/1857 Khatoni No. 2494 bounded as East Public street, West Place of Peer, North land of Mondir and South passage situated at Baniyo wali Johari near Birjwasi Colony in the revenue estate of Bhiwani Jonpal-II, Tehsil and District Bhiwani? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants from interference in her lawful possession over the suit property as alleged on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court RSA No. 2469 of 2010 -3- with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from the Court? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 8. Relief.” Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.2009, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 10.2.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. In the present case, plaintiff had failed to lead any evidence in support of her case and consequently, the suit filed by her was dismissed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 18, 2011 Gurpreet