RSA No.13 of 2010(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.13 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision: 08.01.2010. Satpal .……Appellant Versus Balwinder Singh alias Pammi ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. G. S. Toor, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.73-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.74-C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application delay of 23 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM No.75-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal. Defendant-Satpal has filed this regular second appeal, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Balwinder Singh alias Pammi respondent filed suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against the appellant alleging that the appellant wanted to forcibly dig a Khal (water course) through suit land owned and dispossessed by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff resisted the said attempt of the appellant. However, the appellant being influential person got the plaintiff detained in security proceedings and while the plaintiff was in jail, the defendant RSA No.13 of 2010(O & M) -2- dug a Khal in the suit land. The plaintiff accordingly sought mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the Khal and restore the suit land in original position. The plaintiff also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the said Khal. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 04.09.2006, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction as well as permanent injunction, besides granting damages of Rs.10,000/- as claimed by the plaintiff. First appeal preferred by the defendant appellant stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment dated 29.07.2009. It has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that the defendant-appellant failed to establish the existence of the disputed Khal in the suit land since the time of consolidation of holdings as pleaded by the defendant. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant had moved application for additional evidence before the lower Appellate Court to place on record 'Naksha Nehri Khal' and 'Barabandi', but the said application was dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide order dated 29.07.2009, while dismissing the appeal on the same date. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the said documents would show the existence of the Khal through the suit land. The contention has no merit because copy of Parat Barabandi (Annexure A-1) annexed herewith does not show the existence of RSA No.13 of 2010(O & M) -3- any Khal through the suit land, but only shows that the suit land and other land was being irrigated through Mogha Burji (outlet) 27642/R of Rajvaha Bhadaur. Consequently, no useful purpose could be served by taking the proposed documents in additional evidence. The appellant has not placed on record of this appeal copy of 'Naksha Nehri Khal' and it would give rise to presumption that the said document also does not depict the existence of any Khal through the suit land. The lower Appellate Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the appellant's application for additional evidence. The appellant himself only stepped into the witness box to prove the existence of the Khal in the suit land since the time of consolidation of holdings. However, oral self-serving statement of defendant-appellant is not sufficient to prove the existence of Khal in the suit land since the time of consolidation of holdings and, therefore, the Courts below have rightly decided the case against the appellant. There is no infirmity in the concurrent finding of the Courts below. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. CM No.77-C of 2010 This application for additional evidence for tendering 'Barabandi' and 'Naksha Nehri Canal' is dismissed for reasons recorded in the order in the main appeal. 08.01.2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE