IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Execution Second Appeal No. 36 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 23, 2011. Smt. Santo. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Raghu Raj and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.R.Rana, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present execution second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 16.12.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-objector against order dated 21.12.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Palwal vide which objection petition filed by appellant-objector under Order 21 Rules 97 to 101 of Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. ESA No.36 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, respondents no.1 to 7-decree holders filed civil suit bearing no.601 of 1995 for a decree for permanent injunction, which was decreed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Palwal vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2001 partly. Appeals filed by both the parties against the said judgment and decree was decided by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 05.03.2002 against the defendants and the appeal filed by respondents-decree holders was allowed in toto and respondents-judgment debtors were directed to remove the construction including shed and gate from the street in question. Execution petition was filed by respondent-decree holders against the respondents-judgment debtors in which objections filed by respondents-JDs were dismissed. Thereafter, the objection petition was filed by the present appellant-Objector, which was also dismissed by learned executing Court. The appeal filed against the said judgment/order was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant-Objector that she is widow of Deep Chand, another son of Hira Lal and that there was partition of the entire property between all the three sons of Hira Lal by way of family settlement and since then, the present appellant-Objector has been continuing in possession of the same. It is further contended that site plan was got sanctioned from the Municipal Committee showing separate 2 ESA No.36 of 2011 possession of all the three brothers and however, the said record is not available in the Municipal Committee and that learned courts below have committed illegality in not considering the site plan which was sanctioned in the year 1951. However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant-Objector. Appellant-objector and respondents-JDs are closely related. They are residing in the same house. However, no satisfactory evidence has been adduced to prove the alleged family settlement or the alleged partition to show that objector is in possession of the premises in dispute since the year 1951 in her own right. So far as the alleged site plan sanctioned by the Municipal Committee in the year 1985 is concerned, even the same has not been produced by the appellant-objector in her statement and was not got exhibited. Earlier objections filed by respondents-judgment debtors were also dismissed. The litigation is pending since the year 1985 and the respondents-decree holders are not able to get the decree executed. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less 3 ESA No.36 of 2011 substantial question of law, arises for determination in this execution second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 23, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 4