RSA No.270 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.12180-C of 2010 and RSA No.270 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.10.2010 Gurdev Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Maya Ram and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: - Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** GURDEV SINGH, J. CM No.12180-C of 2010 Heard. This application is for re-admission of the appeal for hearing the same on merits. The same is supported by the affidavit of Ranbir Singh applicant. The appeal was dismissed in default for non-appearance of the appellants. For the reasons stated in the application, the appeal is ordered to be restored at its original number. RSA No.270 of 2010 Heard. This regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 3.9.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which he RSA No.270 of 2010 -2- dismissed the appeal preferred by them against the judgment and decree dated 9.5.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kurukshetra, dismissing their suit for declaration to the effect that the orders dated 17.11.1999, 31.5.1996, 19.10.1993 and 17.10.2000 passed by the Consolidation Authorities for providing path to the defendants/respondents from their land, are illegal, null and void with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from carving out any path through their land. It has been fairly conceded by the counsel for the appellants that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The trial court framed issue No.4 as to whether the civil court had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, which was decided against the plaintiffs and that finding was affirmed by the first appellate court. In that eventuality, the findings on other issues were not to be recorded, still the findings on the other issues were recorded and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. In view of the findings recorded on the said issue, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, the judgment of the first appellate court is modified to the effect that the plaintiff of the plaintiffs stands rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Gurdev Singh) Judge October 27, 2010 R.S.