Regular Second Appeal No. 1368 of 2010 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 1368 of 2010 Date of Decision:September 21, 2010 Swaran Dass ---Appellant versus Narinder Kumar ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate, for the appellant *** GURDEV SINGH, J. Plaintiff- Shankar Dass had filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, Mohinder Kaur and Narinder Kumar from demolishing any portion of the property in dispute measuring 3 marlas situated in village Khusropur, District Jalandhar, fully detailed in the heading of the plaint and shown as red in the site plan attached therewith and also for restraining them from removing any building material and his house hold goods lying on the first floor of that property. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heir-Swaran Dass(son) was brought on the record. The present appeal has been preferred by that Regular Second Appeal No. 1368 of 2010 {2} Swaran Dass against the judgment and decree dated 14.9.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the appeal preferred by him against the judgment and decree dated 5.11.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalandhar, dismissing the suit for the aforesaid relief was dismissed partly and the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from removing the household articles lying on the first floor of the disputed property was not granted in his favour. The plaintiff averred in his plaint that he is owner of the suit property, which is in possession of the defendants as licensee. That license was revoked and suit for mandatory injunction directing them to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property was filed by him. Thereafter, the defendants threatened to demolish this property and to remove the building material as well as the house hold articles belonging to him, which were lying on the first floor, which necessitated the filing of the above said suit. The suit was contested by the defendants. In their written statement they denied the contentions of the plaintiff and pleaded that Charan Dass, husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendant No. 2, is coming in possession of this property since the time immemorial and both of them are staying with them. Their possession is legal, valid, open and uninterrupted. No articles of the plaintiff are lying in this property. On the pleadings of the parties following issued were framed by the trial court:- (1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP (2)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD Regular Second Appeal No. 1368 of 2010 {3} (3)Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (4)Whether no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit?OPD (5)Relief To succeed in the suit, Swarn Dass himself entered into the witness box as PW-1 as attorney of Shankar Dass, who filed the present suit. The plaintiff also examined Ravail Singh, PW-2 and Tejinder Kumar PW-3. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants absented themselves and were proceeded against ex parte. After going through the evidence so produced by the plaintiff and hearing counsel on his behalf, learned Trial Court decided Issue No. 1 against the plaintiff and other issues in his favour and resultantly dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against that judgment and decree, which was party allowed, as aforesaid. It has been submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that once the plaintiff proved his case, he was also entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from removing his house hold articles. The substantial question of law arises in this appeal, “whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction to that effect”. On the basis of the evidence produced by the plaintiff himself, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that at no stage, the plaintiff was in possession of the first floor of the property in dispute and that the alleged goods had already been taken away by the plaintiff on 23.3.2003 and that after the removal of those goods his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from removing those goods had become Regular Second Appeal No. 1368 of 2010 {4} infructuous. It is not the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff that there is any misreading of evidence while recording that finding or that such finding is not based upon any evidence. When such is the case, it cannot be said that any substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 21, 2010 PARAMJIT