IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1. RSA-3916-1998 (O&M)

Reserved on :-29.10.2025 Pronounced on:-03.11.2025 Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and Another … Appellants Versus Raja Ram ... Respondent

2 RSA-3924-1998 (O&M)

Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and Another … Appellants Versus Raja Ram ... Respondent

3. RSA-3963-1998 (O&M)

Haryana State through Collector, Hisar and Another … Appellants Versus Raja Ram ... Respondent ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Manish Dadwal, AAG, Haryana (in all RSAs)

Mr. Divyanshu Bansal, Advocate, Ms. Navdeep Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Tejasvi Luthra, Advocate for the respondents (in all RSAs)

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. This common judgment is being rendered in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, to govern and dispose of the captioned Regular Second Appeals (hereinafter referred to as “RSAs”). All the present appeals arise out of common judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, and they pertain to the same set of transactions, involving identical questions of law and fact.

1.1. In view of the admitted commonality of issues, the identity of the parties across the connected matters, and the concurrence expressed by the learned counsel appearing on both sides, it is deemed appropriate, in the interest of judicial economy and consistency in adjudication, to decide these appeals collectively by way of a single, composite judgment. Such a course, sanctioned by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, serves the dual purpose of ensuring uniformity in legal interpretation and avoiding the risk of conflicting or divergent findings arising from substantially the same factual and legal matrix.

2. At the joint request of the learned counsel representing the parties, the factual matrix for the purpose of this common judgment is being delineated from the pleadings, records, and material placed on file in the respective RSAs, along with the corresponding replies and documents duly forming part of the record. This approach has been adopted to ensure that the narrative of facts is both comprehensive and accurate, capturing the entirety of the relevant background essential for a proper adjudication of the issues in controversy. The Court has, therefore, considered all pertinent aspects arising from the connected appeals in a consolidated manner, so that no material fact or circumstance bearing upon the determination of the present disputes remains unexamined or excluded from consideration.

3. The appellants/respondents, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.06.1998 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar in Civil Appeal Nos.136, 137 & 138 of 30.07.1996/21.06.1997, whereby the well-reasoned judgments and decrees dated 08.06.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehabad in Civil Suit Nos. 600-C, 609-C and 611-C of 18.07.1992 were erroneously reversed, most respectfully invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 by way of the present RSA. The appellants seek restoration of the decree rightly and lawfully passed by the learned Trial Court, and redressal of the substantial injustice occasioned by the impugned reversal.

3.1. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from patent perversity, being vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record, misapplication of settled principles of law, and gross misappreciation of evidence, thereby culminating in a manifest miscarriage of justice. In these circumstances, the appellants humbly beseech the intervention of this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and to restore the well-reasoned and legally sustainable decree of the learned Trial Court.

4. To ensure clarity and convenience in the course of this discussion, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants, consistent with their status be