Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswant Kaur And Ors vs Jagtar Singh And Anr on 4 February, 2015
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
ARCHANA ARORA
RSA No. 4272 of 2012(O&M) 1 2015.02.12 14:49
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 4272 of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision :February 4 , 2015
Jaswant Kaur and others
....... Appellants
Versus
Jagtar Singh and another
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:- Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate
for the appellants.
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
Amit Rawal, J (oral).
CM No.11828-C of 2012 This is an application under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay in refiling the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 7 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
CM No.11829-C of 2012 This is an application under Order 22 Rules 3 read with Section 151 CPC for bringing on record the legal representatives of Jarnail Singh-appellant who is stated to have died on 28.6.2012. The legal representatives of the appellant-Jarnail Singh are permitted RSA No. 4272 of 2012(O&M) 2 to be brought on record.
Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the Memo of Parties and place it at an appropriate place.
The application is disposed of.
RSA No. 4272 of 2012 This Regular Second Appeal is directed at the instance of the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree of the trial court whereby the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for possession of 3 Kanals 13 Marlas of land being western part of Khasra No. 2358/2249/1935 as depicted in the report of the Local Commissioner was decreed.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the courts below have committed illegality and perversity in decreeing the suit as well as dismissing the appeal, in as much as that the appellants-defendants had filed objections to the report of the Local Commissioner which has not been decided.
I am afraid the aforementioned argument of the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants sans merits in as much as the appellants-defendants were proceeded against ex-parte at the stage when the case was fixed for their evidence i.e.on 7.8.2009 whereas the judgment and decree of the trial court has been passed on 8.10.2009. There is no zimini order produced on record to show that the appellants-defendants had filed any objection to the report of the Local Commissioner.
The trial court has returned the finding against the appellants-defendants on the basis of the report of the Local RSA No. 4272 of 2012(O&M) 3 Commissioner which was appointed by the Court and found that the appellants-defendants had been in illegal possession of land measuring 3 Kanals 13 Marlas.
Both the Courts below have rendered a finding of fact and law after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The appellants-defendants have not lead any evidence in support of their defence except examining one witness in examination-in-chief. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the aforementioned orders of the courts below.
No substantial question of law arise for determination by this Court.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE February 4, 2015 archana