RSA No.1346 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1346 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.4.2010 Piara Singh and others .....Appellants vs. Harwinder Singh and other ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr. R.D.Bawa, Advocate, for the appellants. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby their suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in the property in dispute was dismissed. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence had found that plaintiff-appellants had failed to prove their possession over the property in dispute, and thus they were not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed. Before this Court learned counsel for the appellants contended that along with the appeal filed before the lower Appellate Court the appellants had also filed an application under Order XLI rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for leading additional evidence and without deciding the aforesaid application, the impugned judgment was passed by the lower Appellate Court. The order dated 30.3.2010 passed by this Court reads as follows:- RSA No.1346 of 2010 2 “ Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants had moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence before the Lower Appellate Court. However, without deciding the aforesaid application, the impugned judgment has been passed. Let the record of the Lower Appellate Court be called for. However, it is made clear that in case the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants found to be false, this appeal shall be dismissed with heavy costs. List on 27.04.2010”. On the basis of the aforesaid contention the record of the lower Appellate Court was called for, which has been received. From the perusal of the record, it is found that the application filed by appellant under Order XLI rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands decided by a separate order dated 26.11.2009. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants before this Court on 30.3.2010 was incorrect. In this view of the matter and the order dated 30.3.2010, this appeal is ordered to be dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs.10,000/- ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge April 27, 2010 rk