R.S.A.No.2438 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2438 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision : 6.5.2009 Municipal Corporation, Faridabad ....Appellant Versus Smt.Sunita Garg ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondent. ... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is defendant's second appeal directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 21.7.2001 and that of the first appellate Court dated 19.1.2005. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction by pleading that he was owner in possession of a shop fully detailed in the plaint. It was pleaded that this property was purchased by her from one Charat Singh for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 1.9.1989. Said Charat Singh was stated to be the owner of this property which formed a part R.S.A.No.2438 of 2005 (O&M) -2- of Khasra No.183/1 min. He had filed a Civil Suit No.RBT-23 of 8.1.87/11.6.86 against the then Faridabad Complex Administration which was decreed on 26.5.1988. In this suit, it was held that Charat Singh was owner in possession of the suit property. A site plan was got prepared by him regarding the construction which was raised. It was pleaded that the appellant had no concern with the suit property and it was unnecessarily interfering in her possession and was intending upon to demolish the construction. The appellant, who was arrayed as defendant in the suit, did not file any written statement despite availing several opportunities and finally its defence was struck off vide order dated 7.6.1995. Upon the evidence which was adduced by the plaintiff/respondent, the suit was decreed on 21.7.2001 which was then assailed by the appellant before the learned first appellate Court which also dismissed the same. In the regular second appeal preferred by the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and erroneous. It is contended that the appeal deserves to be accepted and the findings recorded by the Courts below deserve to be set aside as the same have resulted in great prejudice to him. He further contended that the civil court had no jurisdiction as the land was Shamlat Deh and that the Courts could not have passed any judgment without raising any triable issues. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the following questions of law arise for the consideration of this Court :- R.S.A.No.2438 of 2005 (O&M) -3- 1. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to deal the Shamlat deh ? 2. Whether the Ld. Court without framing the issue could decide the suit ? 3. Whether the plaintiff has better title than the vendor Charat Singh whose suit for permanent injunction was dismissed by both the Courts? 4. Whether the subsequent suit is barred under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC when the earlier suit on the same cause of action was dismissed in default? On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is hardly any ambiguity in the findings recorded by the Courts below as the ownership of the suit property was established by producing the registered sale-deed which was proved in accordance with law without there being any challenge to the same by the appellant. It was pleaded that the appellant did not participate in the proceedings and the trial Court was therefore perfectly right in proceeding with the case and decreeing the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgments. The impugned judgments reveal that the defence of the appellant/defendant was struck off on 7.6.1995 and no attempt was made by the appellant/defendant to challenge this order and accordingly the trial Court was left with no other option but to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and on the basis of record which was before it, and which R.S.A.No.2438 of 2005 (O&M) -4- went unrebutted. The pleadings also went unrebutted. Accordingly, since the appellant made no efforts to get the order dated 7.6.1995 set aside, it has to be held that it invited a decree against itself and the court was perfectly right in pronouncing the order against it. The substantial questions of law as shown to have arisen in the present appeal do not arise for the reason that the appellant did not deny the allegations against him by filing a written statement and consequently the Court was left with no option but to proceed to determine the issues on the basis of uncontroverted pleadings and unrebutted evidence. Dismissed. 6.5.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss