Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjeet Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 16 January, 2014
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
RSA No. 4773 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.M. No. 12853-C of 2013 in/and
RSA No. 4773 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.01.2014
Surjeet Singh and another
.....Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. B.S.Sidhu, 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?
*** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.
Plaintiffs are in second appeal against concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below in suit for permanent injunction.
To unravel the short controversy involved between the parties, brief narration of the essential facts would be required. Plaintiffs- appellants filed the suit for injunction against the respondent-State, alleging that proposed Lift Scheme Project to drain out excess rainwater of village Bhutiwala will cause flood in their village. There was hardly any space to dig earth to lay pipelines underneath through the phirni (circular path around the village). There was a primary school and a Kumar Amit 2014.03.04 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 4773 of 2013 (O&M) 2 senior secondary school nearby phirni. There was also a hospital and focal point. On the basis of these averments, injunction was sought against the defendants.
Having been served in the suit, the respondents appeared and filed their written statement taking preliminary objections about the maintainability of the suit. It was also averred that plaintiffs have no cause of action and the suit was filed with malafide intention. Plaintiffs did not approach the court with clean hands and concealed material facts, because the project had already been completed up to 80%, after having been duly approved by various authorities, including the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development ('NABARD' for short) and that too after site inspection and considering technical feasibility thereof. It was also stated that no prejudice was going to be caused to the plaintiffs or any of the villagers. Project was being undertaken in the larger public interest, which will serve cause of the residents of the village including that of plaintiffs.
On completion of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues:-
1."Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
2.Whether the suit of plaintiff is maintainable in the present form?OPP
3.Whether the plaintiffs have cause of action to file the present suit?OPP
4.Whether the suit of plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as no notice under section 80 CPC has been served upon defendants?OPD Kumar Amit 2014.03.04 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 4773 of 2013 (O&M) 3
5.Relief."
Parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence to prove their respective case. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs filed their appeal which was also dismissed by the learned lower appellate court, while passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.8.2013. Thus, feeling aggrieved against the judgments and decrees of the learned courts below, plaintiffs- appellants have approached this Court by way of instant appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the courts below failed to appreciate true facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that underground pipeline was sought to be laid down with a view to drain out the excess rain water of the adjoining village. Bonafide apprehension of the plaintiffs-appellants was that it will cause damage to their properties. He submits that phirni was a narrow path and there was hardly any scope to lay down the underground pipeline through the phirni. He next contended that on the metalled portion of phirni, there were houses on both side and there was no sufficient kuchha space to lay down the underground pipeline. He submits that it was high handedness of the respondent-authorities and their project will cause serious prejudice to the rights of the plaintiffs- appellants. He also argued that sufficient agricultural land was available through which the pipeline could have been laid down instead through the phirni of the village. He prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees by allowing the present appeal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, after Kumar Amit careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration 2014.03.04 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 4773 of 2013 (O&M) 4 to the arguments advanced, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts. Since no substantial question of law is involved in the present case, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the following more than one reasons.
It is not the case of the appellants that land through which the underground pipeline was being laid down, with a view to drain out excess rain water of village Bhutiwala, was the individual ownership of any resident of the village, including plaintiffs. In fact, it was not disputed on record that underground pipeline was being laid down only through phirni of the village. Plaintiffs failed to plead and prove as to how the project of laying down the underground pipeline through the phirni was going to cause any kind of loss to the plaintiffs. It was also not in dispute that the project was duly approved by various authorities including NABARD.
The project was being carried out in the larger public interest . Since both the learned courts below have recorded concurrent and cogent findings of facts on each and every issue, no fault can be found with either of the judgments and decrees becuase of which the same deserve to be upheld. Plaintiffs did not approach the court with clean hands. They concealed the material facts that about 80% work on the project had already been completed, spending huge amount of public money thereon.
Learned counsel for the appellants fairly conceded the abovesaid material aspect of the matter, because it was a matter of Kumar Amit record. Once that is so, the suit itself was not maintainable at the time 2014.03.04 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 4773 of 2013 (O&M) 5 when it was filed. The learned courts below have duly considered and appreciated every aspect of the matter, while rendering their impugned judgments and decrees which are based on judicious approach and the same deserve to be upheld for this reason also.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any jurisdictional error, patent illegality or perversity in either of the judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as by learned lower appellate court. He also could not put into service any substantive argument, so as to convince this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the learned courts below. In fact, no prejudice of any kind has been shown to have been caused to the plaintiffs-appellants by carrying out the abovesaid project at the hands of the defendant-State authorities. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned judgments and decrees deserve to be upheld.
By now, it is well settled proposition of law that whenever concurrent findings of facts are based primarily on oral evidence, this Court would not exercise its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, unless the impugned judgment has been found to be suffering from any jurisdictional error or patent illegality. Further, in the present case, no substantial question of law has been found involved for consideration of this Court.
The above said view taken by this Court also finds support from the catena of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This consistent view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naryana Rajendran and another Vs. Lekshmy Sarojini and Kumar Amit others, 2009 (2) RCR (civil) 286.
2014.03.04 11:07I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 4773 of 2013 (O&M) 6
Since the appeal is being dismissed on merits, application for condonation of delay has also been found devoid of any merit and the same is ordered to be dismissed, as no sufficient ground has been made out for condoning the delay.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present regular second appeal is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, the instant regular second appeal stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 16.01.2014 AK Sharma Kumar Amit 2014.03.04 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document