R. S. A. No. 1235 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1235 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 22, 2010 Om Chand .... Appellant Vs. Gurudev Kaur @ Debo and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. R. Hooda, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 3681-C of 2010 : Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. C. M. No. 3682-C of 2010 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal : Plaintiff Om Chand, having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below, has approached this Court by way of instant second appeal. Om Chand filed suit against Mahima Singh (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) alleging that plaintiff is owner in possession of residential house no. 675 in Village Haripur, Sector 4, Panchkula. In front of plaintiff's house, there is a street and then there is house of the defendant. The plaintiff's case is that the intervening street on R. S. A. No. 1235 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the rear of the defendant's house was left for laying water and sewerage lines etc. and inhabitants of the colony were not entitled to open their doors in rear boundary walls, as per directions of Consolidation Officer, at the time of allotment of plots in the colony. The defendant, however, demolished rear boundary wall of his house for purpose of affixing door therein, to which he is entitled to. The plaintiff accordingly sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from affixing door in rear boundary wall of his house. The defendant controverted the plaint allegations and pleaded that no such direction was issued by Consolidation Officer that doors cannot be opened in rear walls of the houses. It was also pleaded that defendant's door in rear wall of his house is in existence much prior to the suit and other residents have also opened doors in the same street in the rear walls. The defendant has not made any encroachment on the street. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panchkula, vide judgment and decree dated 30.05.2009, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has since been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, vide judgment and decree dated 02.12.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff specifically pleaded that Consolidation Officer had issued directions at the time of allotment of plots in the colony that doors shall not be opened in rear walls of the houses. However, the plaintiff could not lead any evidence to this effect. No such direction allegedly issued by Consolidation Officer was produced in evidence. Consequently, the plaintiff has been rightly non-suited by the courts below. In addition to the aforesaid, even the plaintiff in his cross- examination admitted that one Kamala Devi had also opened door in the R. S. A. No. 1235 of 2010 (O&M) 3 rear wall of her house. Kamala Devi, while appearing as PW-3, also admitted this fact. Consequently, it cannot be said that residents of the colony were not entitled to open doors in the rear walls of their houses. It may be noticed that the disputed street is a common public street, even according to the plaintiff's own version. Consequently, no restriction can be imposed on the defendant against opening of door by him in the rear wall of his own house. Both the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and arrived at concurrent finding against the plaintiff. The said finding is not perverse or illegal in any manner. 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. March 22, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE