Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Baldev vs Suresh Kumar Jain And Another on 10 February, 2010

Author: Mahesh Grover

Bench: Mahesh Grover

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
              CHANDIGARH


                                 R.S.A.No.605 of 2010 (O&M)

                                 Date of decision : 10.2.2010


Baldev

                                                 ....Appellant
              Versus


Suresh Kumar Jain and another

                                                 ...Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
                  ....

Present : Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate
          for the appellant.

                         .....

MAHESH GROVER, J.

This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgments passed by the learned trial court dated 13.9.2008 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 25.11.2009.

The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit alleging encroachment upon a public street. The appellant filed a counter-claim alleging encroachment on behalf of the plaintiff in the public street. The courts below vide the impugned judgments as a matter of fact determined that both the appellant and the respondent are guilty of having encroached upon the public street and directed that the same be removed.

The appellant has questioned these findings by way of this regular second appeal.

R.S.A.No.605 of 2010 (O&M) -2-

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal is totally misconceived. A question of fact, which has been determined against the appellant and the plaintiff/respondent, is regarding the encroachment that they have made on a public street without any right. The appeal is totally without merit and no substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. The court is also concerned that instead of removing the encroachment on a public street, the appellant has sought to challenge the findings knowing fully well that he is in the wrong. This has resulted in unnecessary wastage of time of the courts. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Ordered accordingly. The learned trial court is directed to get the costs recovered by issuing notice to the appellant and after following the process of law. The costs so recovered shall be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, Haryana.

10.2.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss