Bachan Kaur And Another v. Baljit Singh And Another

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:19.3.2019 Bachan Kaur and another ... Appellants Vs.

Baljit Singh and another ... Respondents CR No.3514 of 2017 Bachan Kaur and another ... Petitioners Vs.

Baljit Singh and another ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. S.K.Bawa, Advocate for the appellants.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) C.M.No.6127-C of 2017 in RSA No.2495 of 2017 For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 15 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

C.M. stands allowed.

C.M.No.10901-CII of 2017 in CR No.3514 of 2017 For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 78 days in re-filing the revision petition

{2} is condoned.

C.M. stands allowed.

Main cases This order of mine shall dispose of two cases, one RSA bearing No.2495 of 2017 and one revision petition bearing No.3514 of 2017. During the course of arguments, Mr. S.K.Bawa, Advocate repeatedly attempted to point out that the trial Court admitted the fact that defendants in the previous round of litigation in a statement (Ex.PW4/4) made in a suit (at page 52 of the paper book) alleging the admission qua existence of water course can be looked into evidence as per the provisions of Section 21 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 pertained to khasra no.24//16 whereas in the present suit injunction was sought for not to demolish the water channel/khal on khasra no.23//27.

When this Court raised a specific query as to how the aforementioned khasra number is related to subject matter of khasra numbers. It was submitted that water channel begins from khasra no.23//27 and attempt was made to point out from the site plan which concededly has not been proved in accordance with law yet an assertion was made that it commenced from khasra number 23//27.

This Court on many occasions requested learned counsel to point out with regard to the admission qua khasra number 23//27 subject matter of the suit property from pleading in the plaint, nothing was pointed out.

{3} It is a matter of record that parties had been litigating since 28 years and also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Code of Civil Procedure alleging the violation of the status quo order which was dismissed and the order was assailed in accompanying CR No.3514 of 2017. In the absence of any documentary evidence, dismissal of the suit was inevitable.

In my view, both the Courts below have rightly non-suited the plaintiffs on this ground alone. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgments and decrees as well as in the impugned order.

Resultantly, the regular second appeal as well as revision petition are dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE March 19, 2019 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No