C.R. No. 3375 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3375 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: January 23, 2009 Janak Raj .. Petitioner v. Madan Pal and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2007, passed by the learned court below, whereby the suit filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, `the Act') was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit on 19.11.1998 claiming possession of the property alleging that he was illegally dispossessed on 18.10.1998. Though the learned court below found that the suit was within limitation, however, on merits, the petitioner-plaintiff was not found to be entitled to any relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned court below has gone wrong in dismissing the suit of the petitioner by holding that he was not entitled to possession of the property in dispute merely holding that possession was not taken from the petitioner, which is totally contrary to law, as even if the possession was taken from the father of the petitioner, he was entitled to get the same. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. A clear finding has been recorded by the learned court below that the petitioner-plaintiff had failed to establish his actual possession on the suit property on 18.10.1998, i.e., the alleged date of his dispossession. Admittedly, the petitioner was residing at New Delhi , which was established from the evidence produced by the petitioner-plaintiff himself on record. The other evidence produced by him to show the possession of the property pertained to the C.R. No. 3375 of 2007 [2] year 1972 or 1986, that is much prior to the date of alleged dispossession. Not only this fact, but even the identity of the property, from where the petitioner claimed to have been dispossessed illegally, was also not established on record by leading any cogent evidence. The property, which was sought to be proved on record, was a vacant plot on which no one could claim that some body was residing. Even though it was sought to be claimed that father of the plaintiff along with all other family members including the brothers and sisters of the petitioner were residing in the property, but no other member of the family was produced to prove that they were residing in the property in dispute. He even admitted that his brother- Ramesh Kumar is residing at a different place in Amritsar, which is quite close to the suit property. Even if the petitioner was residing at Delhi, had his household articles been thrown out of the property in dispute in the year 1998, as is sought to be alleged, his brother would have certainly made a report to the police or some other authority, but there was no such material on record. Once it is established that possession of the property in dispute was not taken from the petitioner and further even the identity of the property could not be established, I do not find any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 23.1.2009 mk