R.S.A. No.3682 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.3682 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 23.3.2010 Shiv Kumar & another .... Appellants VERSUS Om Parkash & others .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER. Present:- Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M. No.11234-C of 2009 The application is allowed as prayed for. R.S.A. No.3682 of 2009 (O&M) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 9.3.2006 and 13.5.2009 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Narnaul (for short `the first appellate Court'), whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was decreed and the appeal of the defendants/appellants was dismissed. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 pleading that he is residing in the house in question and the defendants/appellants (Defendant No.1 since deceased now by his legal representative Shiv Kumar) be restrained from interfering in his possession. R.S.A. No.3682 of 2009 (O&M) -2- The defendants/appellants contested the suit and denied the ownership of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property?OPD. 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit?OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands?OPD. 4. Whether the defendants are owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession?OPD. 5. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD. 6. Whether the defendants are entitled to special cost under Section 35A CPC?OPD. 7. Relief.” Both the Courts below concluded that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is in possession and decreed the suit for injunction. Aggrieved by the said findings, the instant regular second appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are erroneous, perverse and unsustainable in the eyes of law because except oral evidence, there is no other material to show the ownership of the respondents. R.S.A. No.3682 of 2009 (O&M) -3- I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments. In a suit for permanent injunction, the primary question that is to be determined is the possession. The appellants' own witness DW-1 has categorically admitted that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was residing in the house in question. In view of the admission of the witness of the appellants, which coupled with the evidence adduced by the plaintiff/respondent No.1, leads to an irresistible conclusion that the possession was concededly that of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. It is not the case of the appellants in which they have pleaded ownership and have prayed for possession of the suit property, consequently, their plea to this effect cannot be appreciated in the suit for permanent injunction, which was filed by respondent No.1. The pure question of fact has been determined regarding the possession of the plaintiff/respondent No.1, cannot be interfered with in Regular Second Appeal when no substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. The appeal is dismissed. Consequently, stay application is also dismissed. 23rd March, 2010 (MAHESH GROVER) Monika JUDGE