R.S.A.No.1345 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1345 of 2005 Date of Decision : 06.08.2009 Harminder Singh ...Appellant Versus Amrik Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the defendants' appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed. The plaintiff claimed a decree for permanent injunction and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove obstruction to the passage and water channel at point BC. It was pleaded that the plaintiff has installed tubewell in khasra No.3407/2782 and that the said tubewell exists in Khasra No.2782 for the last 40 years. It was further pleaded that the defendants wrongfully attempted to close the passage ABCD and the water channel and that this is the only source of irrigation to the land of the plaintiff and, therefore, the defendants should not obstruct the water channel and passage in question. In reply, the stand of the defendants was that there is no R.S.A.No.1345 of 2005 2 passage as claimed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not in possession of Khasra No.3404/2782. In fact, defendants are in possession of the same. During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into settlement. A compromise deed was produced by defendant No.1 on 10.08.1999. The plaintiff denied the said compromise with the defendants and in this respect issue No.8-A was framed. The plaintiff examined certain witnesses to prove the aforesaid compromise, but without giving any finding on the said issue, the suit was decreed. The learned first Appellate Court found that an additional issue regarding the compromise was framed by the trial Court on 12.9.2000, but since no finding has been returned on said issue, the learned first Appellate Court sought report on such issue vide order dated 7.10.2004. In terms of the said order, the trial Court has submitted its report on 25.11.2004. No objection was submitted against the report of the trial Court. Thereafter, the appeal has been taken for final hearing. It has been found that though the original compromise has not been produced, but the defendants have been given permission to prove the said compromise by secondary evidence. The said compromise Ex.D- 1 is proved by DW-2 Sucha Singh, DW-3 Karam Singh and DW-5 Amrik Singh. It has been found that said compromise settles the issue between the parties and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for decree for permanent injunction. Thus, the suit was decided in terms of the compromise Ex.D-1, which was ordred to be made part of the decree. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court accepting the R.S.A.No.1345 of 2005 3 compromise as executed by the plaintiff is untenable in law. The findings recorded are based on surmises and conjectures and, therefore, are not sustainable. Such arguments are in fact in the realm of reappreication of evidence. The learned first Appellate Court has examined the entire evidence produced by the parties in respect of compromise Ex.D-1 and recorded a firm finding that in fact plaintiff had settled dispute raised in the suit by way of the aforesaid compromise. In view of the said compromise having been accepted by the learned first Appellate Court. I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 06.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE