R. S. A. No. 4213 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 4213 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 06, 2010 Ram Chander .... Appellant Vs. Nathi Ram and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. R. S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Ram Chander plaintiff, having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. The plaintiff alleged that there was a khal in existence on killa line between khasra nos.13 and 26, which has been dismantled by the defendants. The plaintiff sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the said khal to its original position or in the alternative, defendants be restrained from obstructing laying down of underground pipe line in place of the said khal at the same site. Defendants inter alia pleaded that no such khal was ever in existence and therefore, question of its dismantling did not arise. The plaintiff wanted to lay underground pipe line forcibly and illegally, which R. S. A. No. 4213 of 2009 (O&M) 2 was resisted by the defendants. Parties are co-sharers and no such injunction can be granted against the defendants. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, vide judgment and decree dated 17.09.2008, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff has failed to prove that in fact, such khal, as pleaded by the plaintiff, was in existence or that the same was demolished. Trial court has recorded sufficient reasons to arrive at aforesaid finding. Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence of the existence of the said khal. Oral evidence led by the plaintiff is not sufficient to prove that any such khal was in existence because oral evidence led by the plaintiff stands rebutted by oral evidence of the defendants. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 06, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE