IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1604 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 14, 2011. Pritam Singh. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Smt. Surinder Kaur and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is typographical mistake in typing the date of decree at pages no.3 and 4 of the Grounds of Appeal. It has been mentioned as 17.12.2010 whereas it should have been 17.12.1993. Request accepted. The date of decree as mentioned as 17.12.2010 be read as 17.12.1993. Requisite amendment be made by the registry. RSA No.1604 of 2010 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 29.07.2010 passed by learned District Judge, RSA No.1604 of 2010 Jalandhar dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 13.03.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was partly decreed for recovery of `80,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till the realization of the decretal amount. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for possession of the property in dispute alongwith suit for recovery of amount of `80,000/- as mesne profits for use and occupation of the said property by the defendants on the averments that earlier he had filed a civil suit no.1311 of 1991 on 06.01.1989 against Kulbir Singh, predecessor-in-interest of defendants no.1 to 3 and Vijay Kumar, defendant no.4 and that during pendency of the said suit relief of mandatory injunction was also sought. The said suit was decreed and relief of mandatory injunction was granted and they were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the property in dispute to appellant-plaintiff after demolishing the construction. Further averments are that as now defendants no.1 to 3 are in possession and hence, he is entitled for possession from them. On notice being issued, suit was contested by respondents-defendants. Suit filed by the present appellant-plaintiff was partly decreed for recovery of `80,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till the realization of the decretal amount by learned trial Court and however, regarding relief of possession, it has been observed that appellant- plaintiff is having right to execute the decree for mandatory injunction 2 RSA No.1604 of 2010 already passed in his favour and against respondents-defendants. Appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar by observing that when in the earlier litigation defendants were directed to handover the vacant possession of the property in dispute to plaintiff after demolishing the construction raised by them, appellant-plaintiff is having no cause of action to file fresh suit for possession. It has also been observed that respondents- defendants are bound by the judgment and decree, Ex.P6 passed against their predecessor-in-interest, Kulbir Singh. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the 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 misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in the second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 14 2011 JUDGE ‘om’ 3