RSA No.2145 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2145 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:06.07.2010 Davinder Kaur ...Appellant Versus Ranjit Singh and another .....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Parveen K. Kataria, Advocate for the appellant . ..... Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is plaintiff’s appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts’ below, whereby her suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents from dispossessing/interfering in her possession over the suit property was dismissed. Both the Courts’ below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that respondents were the owner in possession of the suit property and the appellant was permitted to live in the property in dispute and she has no locus standi to file the present suit. On 26.5.2010, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court was not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts’ below. However, learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that though the appellant had no right to the property in dispute yet an effort be made to rehabilitate her as the appellant is the daughter of the respondent. RSA No.2145 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, notice of motion was issued to respondent No.2 and dasti process was ordered. The appellant has failed to serve the respondent neither any explanation is forthcoming in this regard. Thus, from the aforesaid fact it seems that submission of the appellant for her rehabilitation as raised by the learned counsel was not bonafide. In this view of the matter, I find no reason to proceed with this appeal any further. Dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) JUDGE 6th July, 2010 sharmila RSA No.2145 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Even no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.