Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - This appeal arises from a suit for injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiff restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering in the site marked ABCDA shown in red in the site plan dated 28.2.1980 and also from obstructing the appellant-plaintiff from constructing wall BC and CD. The Courts below dismissed the suit holding that the site in dispute marked ABCDA in respect of which an injunction was sought, had not been purchased by the appellant-plaintiff while purchasing the suit property. It was observed that Smt. Bhago purchased the suit property except the portion marked ABCDA in the site plan Exhibit P-2. The appellant- plaintiff purchased the suit property from Smt. Bhago vide sale deed dated 19.12.1978. At the time of admission of the second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the fact that the statement of Nasib Chand had been misread and in fact in para 9 of the lower appellate Court judgment, it was erroneously stated that Nasib Chand had not been examined as witness which was not a fact, as Nasib Chand had appeared as PW6.

2. Having heard Mr. H.S. Hooda, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, I find no ground to