Regular Second Appeal No.3864 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3864 of 2010 Date of Decision:-19.9.2011 Kamlesh Jindal ...Appellant Versus Kewal Krishan Dhamija & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Ashok Jindal, Advocate for the appellant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having kept the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh vs. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749 into focus, now the short and significant question, though important that arises for determination is, as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in the instant regular second appeal, so as to invoke the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 100 C.P.C or not ? 2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 23.4.2008, whereby, the trial Court dismissed the suit of Kamlesh Jindal wife of Suraj Bhan Jindal appellant-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Kewal Krishan Dhamija and others respondent- defendants (for short “the defendants”) from taking forcibly and illegally the chairs, tables, crockery, lights, tent and mats etc. lying in the Sunbeam Palace in question and the judgment & decree dated 3.2.2010, vide which, the Ist Appellate Court has dismissed her appeal as well. 3. As is evident from the record that the indicated articles, subject matter of the suit, were taken into possession by the police of Police Station City Dabwali, by virtue of recovery memo (Ex.D3), in a criminal case registered against Suraj Bhan Jindal, husband of the plaintiff and Amit Jindal, vide FIR No.60 dated 25.4.2000 (Ex.P10), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable Regular Second Appeal No.3864 of 2010 -2- under sections 380 and 454 IPC. Once it is proved on record that the indicated articles are in the custody of criminal Court and they cannot be disposed of, till the final disposal of criminal case, in that eventuality, how the simple suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction is maintainable, remains an unfolded mystery. 4. Having completed all the codal formalities, the Courts below, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable and rightly negatived the claim of the plaintiff in this relevant behalf. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at in this regard. 5. Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned judgments and decrees are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant direction. 6. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff to assail the findings in the impugned judgments and decrees. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on her behalf, in this relevant connection, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 7. In this manner, the entire matter revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmir Singh's case Regular Second Appeal No.3864 of 2010 -3- (supra) in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 8. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. 9. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 19.9.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No