R.S.A. No. 2337 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2337 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.03.2009 Rehman alias Abdul Rehman and others ....appellants versus Aas Mohd ....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. J.K. Sherawat, Advocate, for the appellants. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 6926-C of 2008 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 31 days in refiling the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the C.M. is allowed and the delay of 31 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 2337 of 2008 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2007 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for permanent injunction stands decreed. The plaintiff brought a suit for injunction against the defendant/appellants claiming that he was in physical possession of the agricultural land measuring 17 kanals 4 marlas situated within the R.S.A. No. 2337 of 2008 (O&M) -2- revenue estate of village Kherli as gair marusi, and the possession was continuous without break. He claimed possession of the property since the time of consolidation. The plea was raised that defendants were strangers and have no right, title or interest in the suit land in any capacity. The defendants appeared and filed a joint written statement taking preliminary objections about locus standi, maintainability, estoppel, non-joinder, mis-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of material facts. On merits, the actual physical possession of the plaintiff was denied. It was also denied that defendant/appellants were strangers or had no right or title in the property. They claimed to be in cultivating possession of the suit land for more than last 70 years. It was claimed that revenue entries showing the possession of the plaintiff were false, fictitious, wrong, null and void and having no evidentiary value. It was claimed that defendant/appellants have already taken steps to get the revenue entries corrected by approaching the revenue authorities. The plaintiff led oral as well as documentary evidence to prove his possession over the suit property. However, in spite of availing number of opportunities, defendant/appellants led no evidence to dislodge the evidence led by the appellant The evidence of the defendant/appellants was ordered to be closed by order. In view of the fact that the evidence of plaintiff/respondent remained unrebutted, the learned Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact holding the plaintiff/respondent to be in possession of the property in dispute and, thus, decreed the suit. R.S.A. No. 2337 of 2008 (O&M) -3- The learned counsel for the appellants contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - "Whether the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below are outcome of mis-reading of evidence, thus, perverse?" However, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted, as the finding recorded by the learned Courts below is on appreciation of evidence, which remained unrebutted, as the evidence of the defendant/appellants was ordered to be closed by order. The finding recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be said to be outcome of mis-reading of evidence or perverse. This appeal raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 25, 2009 R.S.