1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1962 of 2006 Date of Decision: 8.5.2009 *** Bant Singh & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Mehar Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. H.R. Nohria, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The plaintiffs are challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below to the extent that they have been denied the relief of declaration of ownership of the suit land to the extent of 2/3rd share, however, finding them in possession of the suit property, the defendant- respondents have been restrained from dispossessing them from the suit land except in due course of law. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the considered view that no question of law would arise for determination in this regular second appeal. It emerges out from the record and admitted by the plaintiffs that in an earlier round of litigation, in a suit filed at the instance of respondents No.1 to 5, they (respondents) were held as joint owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/2 share vide ex-parte judgment and decree dated 8.6.1990. Although the plaintiffs earlier filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the said ex-parte judgment and decree, but their said application was dismissed and the appeal of the plaintiffs filed against the said order of dismissal met with the same fate and the said orders attained finality with the efflux of time. Hence it was rightly observed by the Court below that the plaintiff cannot re- agitate the matter claiming 2/3rd share in the suit land while challenging the 2 judgment and decree dated 8.6.1990 wherein they were found owner to the extent of 1/2 share, once again, especially when they had already exhausted the remedy available to him to lay challenge the said ex-parte judgment and decree. Thus, in the light of above-said findings, it cannot be said that the approach of the Courts below while declining the sought relief of declaration in respect of ownership in the suit land to the extent of 2/3rd share, to the plaintiff is either illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 8, 2009 Jiten