R.S.A. No. 2905 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2905 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.02.2009 Ramjan ....Appellant Versus Hari Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) C.M. No. 2418-C of 2009 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved for condoning the delay of 9 days in filing the application for restoration of R.S.A. No. 2905 of 2008. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed and delay of 9 days in filing the application for restoration is ordered to be condoned. C.M. No. 2419-C of 2009 This is an application for recalling the order dated 13.1.2009 dismissing R.S.A. No. 2905 of 2008 for non- prosecution. Sufficient cause has shown for recalling the order dated 13.1.2009. Accordingly, this application is allowed, the order R.S.A. No. 2905 of 2008 (O&M) -2- dated 13.1.2009 is recalled and the main case is restored to its original number. C.M. No. 8592-C of 2008 This is an application for condoning the delay of one day in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed and the delay of one day in filing the present appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 2905 of 2008 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 5.3.2007 and 28.1.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction stands dismissed. The plaintiff brought a suit on the averments that he was owner in possession of agricultural land mentioned in the suit, in pursuance to the purchase from defendant No. 1. He also claimed to be in possession of the suit property. The suit was contested by the defendants. The execution of sale deed was denied by defendant No. 1. However, in spite of availaing number of opportunities, the plaintiff/appellant failed to lead any evidence in support of his case. Consequently, his evidence was ordered to be closed. The learned Courts below have rightly held that once the averments in plaint were not supported by any evidence, the claim was liable to be rejected. R.S.A. No. 2905 of 2008 (O&M) -3- The decree passed by learned Courts below is in consonance with the settled law. The appeal raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 26, 2009 R.S.