R.S.A. No.222 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.222 of 2006 Date of Decision:26.07.2011 Hardeep Singh Aujla through his LRs ......Appellants Versus Amarjit Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.M.S.Kang, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Harminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Nemo for the remaining respondents. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record are, that Harmeet Singh Aujla, Advocate, son of Charan Singh (since deceased)(now being represented through his LRs)-proforma respondent Nos.15 to 19 and his brother Hardeep Singh son of Charan Singh- appellant-plaintiff No.2(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that they became the owners and are in possession of 23 acres of land vide registered sale-deed, out of 33 acres of the land in dispute, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Amarjit Singh and others-respondent Nos.1 to 14-defendants(for brevity “the defendants”), from interfering into their peaceful possession over the land in dispute. They were stated to have in cultivation possession of another 10 acres of land, mentioned in the heading of the plaint. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of R.S.A. No.222 of 2006 2 events, in all, the plaintiffs claimed that they became the owners and are in possession of 23 acres of land by way of sale-deeds and are in possession of the remaining 10 acres of land, but defendant Nos.1 to 4 intend to illegally dispossess them from the suit land, without any legal right. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants, in the manner indicated hereinabove. 3. As defendant Nos.5,8 to 13 did not appear to contest the suit, therefore, ex parte proceedings were ordered against them. However, defendant Nos.1 to 4, 7 and 14 contested the suit and filed their separate written statement(s), inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, suppression of material facts, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiffs. According to the contesting defendants, the plaintiffs have neither mentioned the names of their vendors, nor the dates of alleged sale-deeds. Even they have not placed the sale- deeds on record. The sale-deeds, if any, were stated to be illegal, fabricated and forged documents. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiffs filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the necessary issues, mentioned in its judgment, for proper adjudication of the case and the case was slated for evidence of the plaintiffs. 5. Although, more than sufficient opportunities were granted to the plaintiffs to conclude their evidence, but as they failed to do so, therefore, their evidence was closed by the order of the trial Court. In the absence of any evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 06.09.2003. R.S.A. No.222 of 2006 3 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 15.09.2005. 7. The appellant-plaintiffs still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this respect. 9. As is evident from the record that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to produce any evidence on record, in order to substantiate their stand that they became the owner of the suit land by way of sale-deeds. Neither the dates of the sale-deeds, or names of the vendors are disclosed in the pleadings, nor the alleged sale-deeds have seen the light of the day and door of the court. Above all, the plaintiffs did not produce any evidence in order to substantiate their stand, despite adequate opportunities. The trial Court did not have any option, but to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs for want of evidence. 10. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-plaintiffs filed an application to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one, which was dismissed by the first Appellate Court. 11. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the trial Court did not afford adequate opportunities to the plaintiffs, to produce the evidence and the trial Court ought to have granted opportunities to them, so, it(trial Court) fell in legal error in dismissing their suit, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. 12. As is clear from the record that, the plaintiffs neither examined even a single witness, nor produced any sale-deed/document on record and the trial Court has rightly closed their evidence, after affording them numerous R.S.A. No.222 of 2006 4 opportunities to lead the evidence. To me, since, it is a case of vague pleadings and of no evidence, so, the first Appellate Court has also rightly dismissed the appeal of the appellant-plaintiffs through the medium of impugned judgment and decree dated 15.09.2005, which deserve to be accepted in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs, to assail the findings of the Courts below. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. July 26, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE