IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3115 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : January 28, 2008 Dhian Singh ....Appellant versus Puro ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Mr. GS Kaura, Advocate for the appellant Pritam Pal,J. (Oral) This regular second appeal by Dhian Singh plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) is directed against judgment and decree dated 26.7.2002 passed by learned trial court, whereby a suit for possession filed by him in respect of an area measuring 3 marlas 4 sarsais comprised in Khasra No. 16, was dismissed. Thereafter, appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 29.5.2007. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in this appeal. Now the only point of argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) had encroached upon an area of 3 marlas - comprised in Khasra No. 16, Rect. No. 28, which belongs to the appellant and this fact is proved from the report of the Local Commissioner obtained by him (appellant). R.S.A. No. 3115 of 2007 (O&M) -2- After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the material placed on the file, it becomes apparent that, in fact, earlier there were two demarcation reports, one in favour of the appellant and the other in favour of the respondent who had denied having made encroachment upon any area of the appellant. In these given facts and circumstances, the learned trial court had appointed a third Local Commissioner i.e. Naib Tehsildar who demarcated the suit property at the spot and prepared his detailed site plan and ultimately Naib Tehsildar found in his report that the respondent was not in possession of any portion of Khasra No. 16 as alleged by the appellant. It is further evident that the appellant was also present and had signed the report regarding demarcation made by Sh. Muni Lal, Naib Tehsildar. Not only that, the appellant also did not file any objection against the said report and as such, there are concurrent findings of the courts below that the appellant has failed to prove any un-authorized possession over his land by the respondent. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellant could not make out any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. Hence, this appeal is dismissed in limine. Since the main appeal is dismissed on merits, so no order is required to be passed on the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. ( Pritam Pal ) January 28, 2008 Judge 'dalbir'