RSA No.4530 of 2014 (O&M)

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.4530 of 2014 (O&M)

Date of decision:02.08.2016

Satish

... Appellant

Vs.

Gram Panchayat of village Balam and another

... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:-

Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate

for the appellant.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the concurrent findings

of the facts and law, whereby, suit seeking permanent injunction with regard

to the area shown by letters 'ABCD' in the site plan, Ex.P1, has been

dismissed.

Mr.C.B.Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant-plaintiff submits that as per the site plan, Ex.P1, the area marked

with letters 'ABCD' is being used for tethering cattle as it is not part of the

suit property, therefore, the findings rendered in the previous suit are

perverse. As noticed by the trial Court, the said findings would not be

binding upon the rights of the appellant. The trial Court has not assigned

any reasons, much less, cogent reasons in rejecting the site plan. There is

gross misreading of the evidence, much less, cross examination. In this

background of the matter, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant,

Savita

2016.08.16 10:31

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.4530 of 2014 (O&M)

{2}

this Court has summoned the record and thus, urges this Court for

formulating the substantial questions of law as culled out in the

memorandum of appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and

appraised the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.

In cross examination, PW3 - Satish Kumar admitted the

photograph Ex.D1 and as well as, the factum of area for which injunction

was sought, which has been made pucca by Gram Panchayat. The

photograph does not reflect the area was being used for tethering the cattle.

It is in this background of the matter, the Courts below rejected the

injunction. I have also gone through the record and of the view that the

plaintiff in cross-examination categorically admitted with regard to

existence of possession as reflected in the site plan Ex.P1.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not intend to differ with the

findings rendered by both the Courts below which are based upon the

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, much less, no substantial

question of law arises for adjudication of the present appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL)

JUDGE

August 02, 2016

savita

Wheather speaking/reasoned

Yes/No

Whether Reportable

Yes/No

Savita

2016.08.16 10:31

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh