IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-2345-1996 (O&M)

Date of decision: 08.01.2026

Smt. Munni Devi (since deceased) through her LRs

and another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Shiv Kumar and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate and

Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate

the applicant/appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-14052-C-2023

Prayer in this application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC read

with Section 151 CPC is for restoration/revival of the main appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 28.11.2023 for the

following reasons:-

“Perusal of the order sheets reveals that since the year

2011, the appellants have gone un-represented on various dates i.e. 09.11.2011, 07.12.2011, 24.05.2017 and 07.01.2019. Further, on 04.02.2019, when this matter was listed for hearing, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the present appeal for non-prosecution on account of non-appearance on behalf of the appellants, had observed that both the appellants have expired and learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the dispute

between the parties had already been resolved. Liberty was also granted to move an application for revival, if anything survives in the appeal. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.04.2019 the instant appeal was restored to its original number and the LRs of appellants No. 1 and 2 were also brought on record. It is pertinent to mention here that both the parties have gone un-represented on the said date i.e.

24.04.2019.

Today also, none has put in appearance on behalf of either of the parties, despite the case having been called twice.”

2. Accordingly, the main appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution. However, in view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the main appeal is ordered to be restored at its original number and position.

4. At the request of learned counsel for the applicants, the main appeal is taken up on Board today itself for disposal.

RSA-2345-1996 (O&M)

Plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby suit filed by the appellants for permanent injunction has been dismissed with costs by both the Courts below.

2. The pleaded case in the plaint was that previously, the suit land was owned by Boga, father of the plaintiffs. After his death, plaintiffs being his only legal heirs came into possession of the suit land as owners. It was alleged that defendants on the basis of illegally sanctioned mutation in favour of defendant No.1, are trying to interfere in the proprietary and possessory rights of the plaintiffs as, defendant No.1 was alleging himself to be son of some predeceased daughter of Boga. With these pleadings, civil suit for permanent injunction was filed on

11.12.1986.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Kaithal, had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with costs vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.1992. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated

27.05.1996. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiffs.

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that learned Courts below were in error in non-suiting the appellants as both the Courts failed to appreciate that it is well established position in law that mutation does not confer any title. Despite the fact that the learned lower appellate court has agreed to this proposition of law yet, it has considered Mutation of Inheritance in favour of Shiv Kumar respondent to be a conclusive of title of Shiv Kumar to inherit the property on the basis of his being son of Smt. Jeewni daughter of Boga and that too without giving its own independent finding on the point.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that again, is well settled that the mutation proceedings