C.M.Nos.11021-22-C of 2011 in RSA No.1586 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.Nos.11021-22-C of 2011 in RSA No.1586 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 18, 2011 Bhagwana @ Bhagwan Singh .....Appellant v. Bhim Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Pradeep P.Chahar, Advocate for the appellant. ....... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.11021-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 11 days in filing the present application is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.11022-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the order dated 11.8.2011 dismissing the present appeal in default is recalled. Registry is directed to register the case at its original number. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.4404-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 896 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.Nos.11021-22-C of 2011 in RSA No.1586 of 2011(O&M) -2- RSA No.1586 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 10.4.2008, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant against judgment and decree dated 21.1.2006 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahadurgarh, vide which suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for decree for permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering in his possession over the property in dispute by raising any construction till the land is partitioned. On notice being issued, respondent-defendant had taken the plea that earlier property in dispute was joint, which was partitioned amongst all the co-sharers and the construction was raised by the co-sharers as per their convenience. Plea has also been taken that plaintiff was having a shop, house and other construction to the extent of his share in a portion of the property in dispute. Hence, plea has been taken that the respondent- defendant is having legal right to raise further construction over the portion in his exclusive possession. On appreciation of evidence, suit filed by present appellant- plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. C.M.Nos.11021-22-C of 2011 in RSA No.1586 of 2011(O&M) -3- Admittedly, both the parties are co-sharers. Even appellant- plaintiff has admitted possession of respondent-defendant over the property in dispute. As per report of Local Commissioner, both the parties have raised construction over the land in their specific possession. Even appellant-plaintiff has also raised construction over the land in his possession. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned 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 this 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. 18.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge