Regular Second Appeal No. 1458 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1458 of 2006 Date of Decision: 5.2.2009 *** Bir Singh .. Appellant VS. Rajbir Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the defendant- respondents seeking the relief of permanent injunction by restraining respondents No.1 to 15 from interfering in his possession over plot No.115, measuring 12 marlas. The stand of the contesting defendants was that the plaintiff himself wants to encroach upon plot No.114, which is a passage used by the villagers, under the garb of his plot No.115. After contest, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial court as also his appeal by the learned first appellate court below. Hence, the instant regular second appeal preferred by the plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper-book carefully. A perusal of the impugned judgments reveals that both the Courts below, on the strength of reports of three local commissioners, including the Commissioner Hisar Division, Hisar who visited the spot and demarcated the spot and in absence of any cogent and convincing evidence led by the plaintiff, except of his own self-serving statement, have Regular Second Appeal No. 1458 of 2006 2 concurrently held that it is the plaintiff himself who has encroached upon the plot No.114, which was a common passage used by the villagers for egress and ingress and since the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands, he was rightly held not entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for. Even the maintainability of the suit in view of provisions of Section 13 of Village Common Lands Act was doubted as also on account of non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Gram Panchayat, in which the plot in dispute vests. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the approach of the Courts below in not granting the relief of the plaintiff-appellant is either illegal or perverse. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view than the one recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal, is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 5,2009 Jiten