CR No. 2088 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 2088 of 2009 Date of Decision: 6.8.2009 Birkha Ram and others ....Petitioners. Versus Suresh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. N.R. Dahia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition, the plaintiff-petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meham, whereby the suit filed by the present petitioners for restoration of possession of the plot in dispute, under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short “the Act”) was dismissed. Put shortly, the facts of the case are that a vacant plot situated within the abadi Lal Dora of village Nindana, fully detailed in para 2 of the judgment (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs as the same was gifted to them verbally by defendant No.6 and an Iqrarnama was also executed by them on 26.10.2004 when defendant No.1 threatened the plaintiffs to CR No. 2088 of 2009 -2- encroach upon the suit property, they filed a complaint before the Police, but no action was taken thereon. The defendants in the absence of the plaintiffs raised pucca wall in the portion ABCD and dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit property illegally and forcibly which gave rise to the filing of the suit for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Act. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing a joint written statement. Various preliminary objections were raised therein. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs were neither owners nor in possession of the suit property. It was further pleaded that defendant No.6 was also not owner in possession of the suit property. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property in dispute shown with letters ABCD in the site plan, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to mesne profit for the alleged illegal operation, if so, to what extent? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief.” CR No. 2088 of 2009 -3- On appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the trial court took issues No.1 to 2 together and decided the same against the plaintiffs holding that they had failed to prove that they were in possession of the suit property and that they had been dispossessed by the defendants from the same. Issues No.3 and 4 were decided in favour of the defendants holding that neither the suit of the plaintiffs was maintainable nor had they cause of action to file the same. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree 8.12.2008 dismissed the suit. Hence, the present revision petition by the plaintiffs. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file with their assistance. The trial court while deciding issues No.1 and 2 has categorically come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they were in possession of the suit property and they had been dispossessed from the same forcibly. In view of the aforesaid finding, the suit of the plaintiffs for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Act was dismissed. Nothing could be shown that the aforesaid finding recorded by the trial court was erroneous or perverse in any manner. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. August 6, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE