IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 406 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 9, 2011. Mohan Inder Singh and another. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Ram Dass Grover. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.C.Chhabra, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 12.08.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur dismissing appeal filed by the present appellants- defendants against judgment and decree dated 17.08.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Zira vide which suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was partly decreed. RSA No.406 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining present appellants-defendants from forcibly and illegally demolishing the common wall shown by letters ABC in red colour on the ground floor and on the first floor existing in between the property of plaintiff shown by letters ABCDEFGH in green colour and property of appellants-defendants shown by letters ABCIJKL in blue colour in the site plan attached with the plaint alongwith the relief of mandatory injunction directing appellants-defendants to reconstruct and recondition the portion of the wall ABC measuring four feet height from the top on the first floor allegedly demolished by present appellants-defendants. On notice being issued, appellants-defendants have taken the plea that the wall is not common of the parties and that rather the same is exclusively owned by present appellants-defendants. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court partly decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the appellants-defendants from demolishing the common wall in dispute at point ABC as shown in the site plan, Ex.P1 except in due course of law. However, relief regarding grant of mandatory injunction was declined. Appeal filed by present appellants-defendants against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur by observing that 2 RSA No.406 of 2011 present appellants-defendants were restrained from demolishing the wall in dispute except in due course of law and that they were restrained from taking law into their own hands and they are free to have recourse available to them under the law. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- defendants that they have been absolutely restrained from constructing the disputed wall. However, plea cannot be accepted. No counter claim to this effect was claimed by present appellants-defendants in the suit. They were only restrained from demolishing the wall in dispute except in due course of law. 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 both the 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 mis-appreciation 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 9, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 3