Punjab-Haryana High Court
Asthal Tirkhu Tirath vs Gram Panchayat Village Pathri on 11 February, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020078
RSA-3939--2023 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
120 RSA
RSA-3939-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.02.2025
Asthal Tirkhu Tirath .... Appellant
Versus
Gram Panchayat, Village Pathri .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: - Mr. DS Malik, Advocate for the appellant
.
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The present regular second appeal has been prefe preferred rred by the plaintiff/appellant against the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by both the Courts below.
The appellant-plaintiff plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is is owner in possession of the suit land as Dholidar since past 500 years, years as described in the plaint; and that the impugned mutation No. 882 with regard to the suit land sanctioned in favour of defendant-respondent/Gram defendant respondent/Gram Panchayat, is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff.
It is the case of the appellant--plaintiff that in respect of the suit land one Rajpal, had earlier filed a Civil Suit No. 508 oof 2003 for permanent injunction claiming to be the owner of the suit land. The said civil suit was dismissed up to this Court C urt and it was found that the present 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2025 03:39:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020078 RSA-3939--2023 (O&M) -2- appellant is owner in possession of the suit land. It is submitted that due to inadvertence, the said record regarding egarding the previous suit could not be produced by the appellant before the learned trial Court; and resultantly, suit of the plaintiff-appellant plaintiff appellant was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 11.07.2019.
In appeal, the appellant had ad produced the said record before the learned Appellate Court, Court, along with an application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC (available at page 113 of the lower Appellate Court record). However, while dismissing the appeal of the appellant vide impugned judgment and decree dated 01.09.2023, the learned lower Appellate Court, has ha failed to decide the said application of the appellant demonstrating that the appellant has already been declared as owner in possession of the suit land. It is submitted that a perusal of the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2023, passed by the learned lower Appellate Court, shows that nothing has been discussed about the present or previous litigation between the appellant appellant-plaintiff and the defendant.
Further, it iss submitted that the appellant appellant-plaintiff was non-
suited by the learned trial Court on the ground that the appellant had failed to bring any evidence to show its ownership and possession over the suit land. The suit of the plaintiff was also dismissed being barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short-'the short Act').
Learned counsel for the plaintiff plaintiff-appellant very fairly admits that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 13 of the Act and, therefore, he submits that he may be permitt permitted to withdraw the 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2025 03:39:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:020078 RSA-3939--2023 (O&M) -3- instant second appeal, with liberty to the appellant to take recourse to the appropriate remedy, in accordance with law law, if any.
Permitted to do so.
Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.
11.02.2025 .02.2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 14-02-2025 03:39:32 :::