IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4944 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: February 8, 2010. Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Irrigation Department & Ors. ...Appellant(s) v. Brij Lal & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Kulvir Narwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant(s). Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit for possession filed by the plaintiff-respondents, has been decreed. There is delay of 230 days in filing the present appeal. An application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed along with this appeal. The only ground taken for condoning the delay is that the delay has occurred due to engagement in some administrative and unavoidable multifarious duties. The aforesaid reason is hardly any ground to condone the delay. Even otherwise, I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and I find that the appeal is without any merit. In view thereof, I am not inclined to condone the delay. Briefly, as per the averments made in the suit, the plaintiff- respondents were owners of the suit property, however, the same was not available on the spot and therefore, on an application for demarcation of the land in dispute, demarcation was done by Field Kanungo on 19.11.2003 in the presence of the employees of the appellants and it was found that the appellant-Department was in illegal and forcible possession of the same. Hence, the present suit for possession was filed. The suit was contested by the appellants raising various legal submissions. On merits, the demarcation report was denied and it was further submitted that the appellants have become owners of the property being in adverse possession. On appreciation of evidence, both the courts below held that the defendants utterly failed to prove that they had become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession since they led no documentary evidence or oral evidence in support of their plea. Thus, this court is not inclined to take cognizance of this appeal in view of the provisions of Section 100 CPC, filed against concurrent findings of facts returned by the two courts below on appreciation of evidence on record. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 8, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge