IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

RSA-3076-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision.:03.03.2025 Sant Ram and Others …..Appellants Vs.

Sahab Singh .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate and Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

CM-12615-C-2024:

Along with this appeal filed by defendants of the case against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, present applica#on has been moved to condone the delay of 367 days in filing the appeal.

2. The only reason pleaded for delay in filing the appeal is that though the appellants had contacted their counsel for filing the Regular Second Appeal but the same could not be filed within #me due to one or the other pretext. What is that pretext causing the delay, is absolutely not explained in the applica#on. As such, this Court does not find any jus#fica#on to condone the long delay of 367 days in filing this RSA and therefore, the applica#on is hereby dismissed.

Main case.:

3. Although the appeal deserves to be dismissed being barred by limita#on but even if it is considered on merits, present appeal is found to be devoid of merits. The appeal is filed by the defendants of the case against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Suit for permanent injunc#on was filed by the plain#ff Sahab Singh (respondent herein), claiming to be owner of the suit property and that there was a ‘Dol’/water course towards the Eastern side of the suit property, which was being used by him and other inhabitants for cul#va#ng their fields. It was alleged that defendants intended to damage the said water course and further intended to take possession of the suit property by destroying the crops. Defendants contested the suit. A5er framing issues and taking evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 21.07.2022 and the said judgment has been endorsed by the first Appellate Court, in the appeal filed by the defendants, on 18.08.2023.

4. Assailing the findings, it is contended by learned counsel that Courts below have relied upon a judgment dated 10.05.2001 against Sardara Singh, one of the appellants. It is submi;ed that though that judgment has been upheld up to the High Court but that suit had been filed against Sardara Singh despite the fact that he had already transfered the property to his son. However learned counsel has failed to show that any such plea was taken before the trial Court.

5. Apart from above, it will be relevant to refer to the observa#ons made by the first Appellate Court regarding the controversy.

“10. A5er hearing the submission of both the par#es, the first plea comes before the Court as to “whether the respondent is in possession of the suit property or not”. It is clear that in the suit dated 10.05.2001 the respondent Sahab Singh has been held in possession of the suit property. It is also clear that document Ex.P5 is Girdawari and reliance can be placed on Ex.P5 to establish the cul#va#on of the plain#ffs over the suit property. It is clear from the record that the suit property came in the consolida#on proceedings carried out in the village Ismaila 11B, Rohtak. It is further clear that the respondent filed a Civil Writ Pe##on bearing No. 9363/1993 which was decided on 14.07/2015. The property came in the share of the respondent. It is clear from the judgment also that on 10.05.2021 the respondent was held in possession of the suit property. Hence, this plea is decided against the appellants and in favour of the respondent.

11. The next plea comes before this Court as to “whether the revenue record is showing the possession of the respondent over the suit property”. It is clear that the property has come in the share of respondent in consolida#on. It is further clear that Hon’ble High Court in the Civil Writ Pe##on bearing no. 9363 of 1993 #tled as Sahab Singh Versus Addi#onal Director, Consolida#on, Haryana, Rohtak and others upheld the validity of consolida#on procee