R.S.A. No.797 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.797 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:01.09.2010. Bharpur Singh and others ...Appellants Versus Surinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) The defendants are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been decreed. Admittedly, in a round of litigation before the Revenue Courts, the plaintiffs have been successful in seeking eviction of the defendants. Vide Rapat No.322 dated 17.04.2002 they were also put in possession. The defendants were still, being strong headed persons, kept on interfering in possession of the plaintiffs, therefore, they had to file the suit for permanent injunction. In this case, plaintiff Surinder Singh entered the witness box as PW2 and stated on oath that they are in possession of the suit property, whereas the defendants did not dare to enter the witness box being afraid of cross-examination. Therefore, with regard to the stand taken by the defendants that they are in possession of the suit property, there is no evidence on their behalf except for relying upon a Kalendra dated 16.05.2002. R.S.A. No.797 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - ****** The defendants are claiming themselves to be in possession of the suit property alleging that if the possession had been delivered to the plaintiffs on 17.04.2002 then they would not have filed an application claiming the defendants to be in possession on the basis of which the Kalendra was prepared. This argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants has been dealt with by the Courts below but it was not found having any substance for the reason that the defendants did not place on record the application filed by the plaintiffs on the basis of which the Kalendra was prepared. Since both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact and learned counsel for the appellants has not raised any question of law much-less substantial as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. September 01, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE