In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 671 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 14, 2010 Ram Niwas and others ---Appellants versus Biswedaran of village Dacasia/ village proprietary body and others ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Adish Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants *** GURDEV SINGH, J. The appellants-plaintiffs filed suit for possession by way of partition of the land in dispute on the ground that they are the members of the proprietory body of the village and that the land in dispute is to be partitioned as per their share. The suit was contested by the respondents-defendants on a number of grounds taken by them in the written statement. They pleaded that the land is dispute is not jointly owned and possessed by the proprietory body of the village and that they are coming in cultivating possession thereof on the payment of rent/chakota at the rate of ` 1200/- per month. They also took up preliminary objection to the effect that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 158(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and the same is not maintainable. Issues Regular Second Appeal No. 671 of 2010 -2- were framed. Parties produced their evidence and after hearing counsel on their behalf, Civil Judge(Junior Division), Faridabad, after recording findings on the issues, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.2006. The first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.2009. Now, they have come up with the present second appeal against those judgments and decrees. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. After hearing submissions of the counsel for the plaintiffs, this court has come to the conclusion that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Concurrent findings of fact were recorded by both the courts below. According to the counsel for the plaintiffs, the land in dispute is abadi deh and therefore, the same cannot be subject matter of the partition. If it is taken that the same is being used for agricultural purposes, then the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is specifically barred under Section 158(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. When no substantial question of law is involved, second appeal cannot be entertained and is dismissed as such. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE December 14, 2010 PARAMJIT