Rajbir And ANR v. Anil Kumar

RSA No.354 of 2013 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.354 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Order: 28.08.2017 Rajbir and another ..Appellants

Versus

Anil Kuamr ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for respondent no.1.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral) C.M.Nos.991-92-C-2013 Prayer in these applications is for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in these applications, which are supported by an affidavits, the delay of 1 day in filing and delay of 211 days in re-filing the appeal are condoned.

Applications are allowed.

RSA No.354 of 2013 Defendants are appellants before this Court. Defendants have challenged the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming to be in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff claimed that pursuant to a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 05.02.2002, sale deed was executed in his favour with the help of the Court. Plaintiff prayed for Naresh Kumar 2017.09.14 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

RSA No.354 of 2013 (O&M) -2decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession.

Defendants contested the suit claiming that he is a biswedar of the village and therefore he is in possession of the property. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on the file, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Defendants-appellants filed the first appeal. Learned first appellate Court has also upheld the findings of the trial Court after reappreciating the evidence available on the file. Learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the contentions raised before the first appellate Court. Learned first appellate Court being last Court of finding of fact has dealt with the arguments and returned the findings of fact against the appellants. Hence, there is no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below. The regular second appeal is ordered to be dismissed.

August 28, 2017 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Naresh Kumar 2017.09.14 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh