RSA No.2559 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2559 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 4, 2011 Gurmukh Singh alias Gurmukh Ram .....Appellant v. Balbir Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.K.S.Dhillon, Advocate for the appellant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.7068-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.2559 of 2011 The present inter pleader suit under Section 88 read with Order 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') was filed by Balbir Singh son of Dhanna Singh-respondent no.1, against the present appellant and Gurdwara Dera Baba Bara Singh, Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (Regd.) -respondent no.2. He has taken the plea that he had taken the premises in dispute on rent from Prabandhak Committee of Dera Baba Bara Singh and had been paying the rent regularly to the said Prabandhak Committee against receipts. He has further taken the plea that there was some earlier Will executed in favour of present appellant, which was later on cancelled and however, it has been observed by learned District Judge, Jalandhar, that no evidence was adduced by present appellant before learned trial Court. Suit filed by respondent- plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said RSA No.2559 of 2011(O&M) -2- judgment and decree by the present appellant-Gurmukh Singh, was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Jalandhar, by observing that dispute is between Parbandhak Committee and Gurmukh Singh, i.e., the present appellant. It has also been observed that as per Order 35 of the Code, suit cannot be filed by a tenant or agent as inter pleader suit unless second party is also claiming through principal or landlord and in the present case as per averment in the plaint, the plaintiff himself has admitted that earlier he was tenant under Sant Bara Singh and later on became the tenant under the Parbandhak Committee of Dera Baba Bara Singh and paying rent against receipts. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in the second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 4.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge