Punjab-Haryana High Court
Babu Lal vs Raj Kumar & Ors on 11 March, 2013
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
RSA No.888 of 2011(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.888 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision:-11.03.2013
Babu Lal.
......Appellant.
Versus
Raj Kumar & Ors.
......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Vijay Singh Kajla, Advocate for the Appellant/Plaintiff.
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL)
Plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below whereby the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Hisar vide its judgment and decree dated 08.01.2010 partly decreed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for mandatory injunction while rejecting the plea for removal of the alleged projections raised by defendant no.1 across the street; and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide his judgment and decree dated 18.09.2010 while dismissing the appeals filed by the plaintiff as well as by the defendant no.1-Raj Kumar.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance.
Learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant has argued that both the courts below have ignored the oral evidence of the plaintiff in RSA No.888 of 2011(O&M) #2# respect of the projections raised by the defendant no.1 Raj Kumar across the streets which while returning their findings.
After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perusing the record carefully with his able assistance, I find no ground to interfere in the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below and the present second appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is apparent that both the courts below have after fully appreciating the evidence adduced on record have partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction by directing the defendant no.1 Raj Kumar for removing the latrine constructed by him on the public street while declining the relief qua removal of the alleged projections made by him across the street. For recording such a finding the learned courts below have relied upon complaint Ex.D-1 moved by the inhabitants of the Balmiki Colony and the notice Ex.D-3 issued by the Municipal Council, Hisar after spot inspection wherein in both the documents there is no mention regarding any projection raised by defendant no.1 Raj Kumar. It has been found that in both the documents Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-3 there is mention of only an illegal construction of a latrine and not any projections. The findings were further corroborated by the photographs proved on record.
In view of the above, finding no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for determination in the present second appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE March 11, 2013 Vinay