In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... CM No.5171-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No.1637 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:30.5.2008 Tejender Kumar .....Applicant-Appellant v. Smt. Jaswanti Devi and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) CM No.5171-C/2008: For the reasons stated in the CM application, the delay of 260 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The CM stands allowed. R.S.A. No.1637/2008: This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh has been dismissed. The plaintiff-appellant Tejender Kumar filed a suit for seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession on the portion of the plot marked by letters `ABCD'. A further prayer was made for restraining the defendants from raising any CM No.5171-C/2008 and R.S.A. No.1637 of 2008 [2] hurried construction over the portion of the plaintiff's plot. In the alternative, it was prayed that if the defendants were found to have raised construction in the disputed site during the pendency of the suit, then the same be ordered to be removed by passing a decree for mandatory injunction. The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased a plot vide sale deed dated 5.11.1981 measuring 240 sq. yards comprised in Khasra numbers as detailed in the plaint. The same was within the municipal limits of Municipal Council, Bahadurgarh. He had also got ownership and possession through decree in Civil Suit No.691 dated 5.9.1987 passed by the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Bahadurgarh on 1.10.1987. The house of the defendants was adjacent to the plot of the plaintiff and the defendants in order to grab the same were wanting to take forcible possession over the portion of the plot. Besides, the defendants wanted to make construction in the plot for which they had collected material and bricks. It is submitted that an earlier suit was got decreed in her (Jaswanti Devi-def. No.1) favour from the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh on 26.7.1997. Defendant No.1, it was alleged, had misrepresented the material facts. Besides, order passed by the Court was an ex parte one. The Defendant took the stand that the plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit plot. The boundaries of the plot and site plan as mentioned in the plaint were incorrect. The trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record held that the plaintiff was not proved to be owner in possession of the plot as claimed. Reliance was placed on the sale deed (Ex.P.1), report of the Local Commissioner (Ex.P.4) and the earlier decision of the Court and it CM No.5171-C/2008 and R.S.A. No.1637 of 2008 [3] was held that the plaintiff could not prove his possession in respect of the plot. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar before whom the appeal was filed by the plaintiff after considering the evidence and material on record affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court. It was held that the plaintiff had claimed ownership and possession of plot No.37 as detailed in para 2 of the plaint. It was observed that the sale deed dated 5.11.1981 (Ex.P.1) on the basis of which the possession of the plot was claimed, however, from a perusal of the same, it transpired that plot No.37 comprised in Khasra No.29, Must. 20 Min. has total area of 40 sq. yards in view of the judgment (Ex.D.1) passed in civil suit titled Smt. Mewa Devi v. Jaswanti Devi. It was clear that the suit of the plaintiff Smt. Mewa Devi in that case was dismissed. The defendants claimed their ownership in terms of the judgment and decree (Exs.D.1 and D.2) and another judgment and decree (Exs.D.3 and D.4). On the basis of the same, it was held that the plaintiff was unable to prove the possession. After hearing leaned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, it may be noticed that the finding reached at with regard to ownership of the plot is a pure finding of fact and calls for no interference in regular second appeal. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. May 30, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No