IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4075 of 2008 and C.M. No. 12103-C of 2008 Date of Decision : November 25, 2009 Prem Chand ....Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat of village Kalyana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.P.Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by the appellant for a decree for permanent injunction so as to restrain the respondents from interfering in his peaceful and lawful possession over the suit property and from dispossessing him forcibly and illegally, was dismissed with costs by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala, on 30.11.2007, which judgment and decree was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, on 22.2.2008 when the first appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. He is now before this Court by way of a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The stand of the plaintiff-appellant was that he was owner in possession of the suit property which was an open space situated in the abadi of the village. On the western side of the suit property, he was R.S.A. No. 4075 of 2008 -2- having two rooms and a sehan, on the southern side there was public street whereas on the northern side there was school building. He had been using the suit property for storing cow-dung cakes, wood etc. besides using it for domestic purposes. However, the defendants, who had no right, title or interest in the suit property wanted to dispossess him forcibly due to party faction. While contesting the suit, the defendants-respondents claimed that the plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit property. Infact, he wanted to forcibly encroach upon and occupy the adjacent open Gram Panchayat land, which was meant for use of the school. There used to be a boundary wall between the house of the plaintiff and the school, which had been demolished by the plaintiff with a view to extending his property towards school side. The bricks of the boundary wall were misappropriated by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on the record, the learned trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit property. Moreover, he has not been able to prove the identity of the suit property as the site plan Ex.P2 remained unproved on the file. The suit was, accordingly, dismissed. As mentioned above, the first appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed. As is apparent from the judgment passed by the learned trial R.S.A. No. 4075 of 2008 -3- Court, the suit property bounded by points ABCD in the site plan Ex.P1 was part of the school compound and belonged to the Gram Panchayat. While appearing as PW4, the plaintiff admitted that there was a six feet high wall in between his property and the suit property. Vide document Ex.PW1/B it stood established that the plaintiff was ousted with the help of police from the suit property on 19.10.2000 and thereafter he again came in possession of the same by pulling down the wall raised by the Panchayat in between the property marked as ABCD and his property at point AB. In view of the above, learned Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his own case and stand on his own legs and, therefore, he could not take the benefit of the weakness of the case of other side when it was mentioned by the defendants in their written statement that they would file the site plan but they failed to do so. Alongwith the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application under Order LXI Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for bringing on record the site plan Annexure P-1, aks-shajra Annexure P-2 and photographs Annexures P-3 and P-4, as according to him these documents would settle the material controversy. It has been stated in the application that the appellant could not lay his hands on the copies of aks-shajra and existing site plan or produce the photographs of the site due to inadvertence. The appellant had ample opportunity before the learned trial R.S.A. No. 4075 of 2008 -4- Court to lead evidence in support of his plaint. He made no attempt to produce Annexures P-1 to P-4. His explanation that he could not do so on account of inadvertence cannot be considered sufficient to enable him to produce the said Annexures in the present appeal by way of additional evidence. Infact, by way of said application, he has made an attempt to fill the lacunae in his case and, that too, in a second appeal, which cannot be permitted. The application is, therefore, dismissed. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below were based on proper appreciation of the material evidence brought on the record. These findings cannot be upset and, that too, in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. None of the law points as mentioned by learned counsel for the appellant in para 14 of the grounds of appeal, much less any substantial question of law, arises for determination. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) November 25, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1