R.S.A.No.2376 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. No.7018-C of 2009 and R.S.A.No.2376 of 2009 Date of decision: 9th November, 2009 Raj Kumar and another ......Appellants Versus Chamel Singh and another .....Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. J.K.Goel, Advocate for the appellants. Rajive Bhalla, J.(Oral) Civil Misc. No. 7018-C of 2009 Prayer in this application is for condoning the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal, qua appellant no. 2. Heard counsel for the appellant. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal, qua appellant no. 2 is condoned. R.S.A.No.2376 of 2009 The appellants challenge judgments and decrees dated 7.12.2007 and 13.01.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal and the District Judge, Karnal, dismissing their suit and their appeal, respectively. The plaintiff/appellants filed a suit for mandatory injunction, to restrain the defendant/respondents from using the Rasta marked by the letters ABCD, as this land falls in khasra no. 200, which belongs to them. The respondents resisted the suit by pleading that R.S.A.No.2376 of 2009 -2- the appellants father Nathu Ram, had filed two civil suits with respect to this Rasta. A compromise dated 3.06.1999 was effected and the suits were dismissed as withdrawn. The respondents further averred that as their doors and windows open into the disputed Rasta, the suit should be dismissed. After appraising the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court dismissed the suit by holding that the Rasta denoted by the letters ABCD is being used by the parties to access their respective houses and therefore, the respondents cannot be restrained. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 13.01.2009, the District Judge, Karnal, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Counsel for the appellants submits that admittedly, khasra no. 200 belongs to the appellants. The compromise Ex.C-1, does not bind the appellants, as their father was not owner of the suit land. It is argued that as these facts have been ignored by the courts below, the appeal be allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below be set aside. I have heard counsel for the appellants, perused the impugned judgments and decrees and do not find any reason to hold that any question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration. The dispute in the present case relates to use of a rasta marked by the letters ABCD. The question of the ownership and whether their father was the owner of the suit land or not, are irrelevant, as the dispute relates to the use of path not only by the respondents but also by the appellants. As a consequence, their plea R.S.A.No.2376 of 2009 -3- of ownership would not confer any right upon the appellants to exclusive user of the path marked by the letters ABCD. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the findings recorded by the courts below do not suffer from any error of law, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 9th November, 2009 Shivani Kaushik