1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 542 of 2009.(O&M) Date of Decision: 30.1.2009 *** Sita @ Surjit Kaur .. Appellant VS. Tarsem Kumar .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Deficiency of Court Fee has already been made good. Heard. Delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. This regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff- appellant, who has been non-suited by both the Courts below, in a suit for permanent injunction, filed by her. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper-book carefully. The plaintiff got instituted a suit against the respondent- defendant, the owner, claiming that earlier her husband was tenant over the suit land while after her death, she acquired the possessory rights over the same and the defendant-respondent be restrained from interfering in her peaceful possession. While the stand of the defendant was that the plaintiff-appellant was ordered to be ejected from the suit property as per the orders of revenue authorities, which stand complied with and it is he who is presently in occupation of the suit property. On these broad lines he also filed counter- claim and sought directions that the plaintiff be restrained from interfering in his possession over the suit property. It is apparent from the perusal of the impugned judgments that both the Courts below concurrently held that with the passing of order of 2 ejectment against the plaintiff, by the revenue authorities, the status of the plaintiff-tenant came to an end and thus no injunction can be passed in her favour. The observations made by the learned appellate court below, while affirming the findings of the learned trial court in para No.11 of the judgment are relevant, which read thus:- “11. After hearing both the sides and perusing the lower court file carefully, I am of the considered opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, the plaintiff/ appellant was tenant over the suit land and prior to her, her husband was a tenant. However, on an ejectment application filed by the defendant/ respondent, the plaintiff/ appellant was ordered to be ejected by the Asstt. Collector, Ist Grade and the Collector, Kurukshetra. However, the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiff/ appellant and remanded the case back. Against the said order of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, the defendant/ respondent filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh. The said revision was allowed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide order dated 20.4.2006 and order of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala was set aside. There is documentary evidence on the record to the effect that ejectment order was executed and the defendant/ respondent was put in possession of the suit land. Now, as per revenue record, the defendant/ respondent is in possession of the suit land as owner. Therefore, after ejectment, status of the plaintiff/ appellant as a tenant has come to an end and she has no right, title or interest in the suit land. The present suit for permanent injunction is, thus, misconceived and the same has rightly be dismissed by the learned trial court. Therefore, findings recorded by the learned trial court on various issues are affirmed.” 3 From the above, it is manifestly clear that on the basis of overwhelming evidence produced on record, to which no rebuttal was produced by the plaintiff, it was duly proved that the order of her ejectment from the suit property, passed by the revenue authorities, was complied with, which has also reflection in the revenue record. Thus, in the light of above-said findings, the plaintiff cannot derive any benefit from self-serving document Annexure-1, claiming her possession over the suit land and the plea raised on the strength of case law Krishna Devi & Ors. Vs. Amarjit & Ors. 2004 (2) Civil Court Cases (P&H) 593, that since the defendant-respondent has not appeared in the witness-box, therefore, an adverse inference should have been drawn against him. Moreover, the unrebutted documentary evidence led by the defendant speaks volume regarding genuineness of his plea regarding ejectment of the appellant from the suit property pursuant to the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities and his coming into possession thereon. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the plaintiff has to stand on his/her own legs and no undue benefit can be derived from weakness of the opposite party. Nothing has been shown that findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 30,2009 Jiten