Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpartap Singh vs Ranjeet Singh And Ors on 13 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147765
RSA-585-2022(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(119)
RSA-585-2022(O&M)
Date of Decision:-13.11.2024
Gurpartap Singh
......Appellant
Versus
Ranjeet Singh and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
****
Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.
****
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2020 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Assandh, Karnal, whereby, the suit for permanent injunction with respect to the rasta abutting the land forming a part of khewat No.3321/3329, khatoni no.4568, rectangle no.138, killa no.13(8-1), 18(8-0), 23(7-5),rectangle no.165, killa no.2(8-10), filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed and the appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree has also been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 04.02.2022 passed by the District Judge, Karnal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has vehemently argued that the trial Court despite proceeding the respondents against ex parte dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit property. However, an application under Section 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2024 10:57:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147765 RSA-585-2022(O&M) -2- 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the appellant to place on record additional documents (Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-17) showing his possession, was allowed. He submits that the learned First Appellate Court has also dismissed his appeal despite he be the true owner in possession of his property.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and have gone through the record.
4. The Courts below had rightly held that although the plaintiff- appellant is in possession of the suit property, however, virtually the present suit is for claiming rasta in straight line in Western side of Killa No.13, 18 & 23 and after Killa No.23 passing through Killa No.165//2. However the land falling in Killa No.165//2 is not owned by the plaintiff and the petitioner is claiming straight rasta in Kill No.165//2 also. Nevertheless, the rasta alleged by the appellant-plaintiff is not depicted in the revenue record.
5. In the light of the above, I have not found any ground to interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.
6. Dismissed.
7. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(ALOK JAIN) JUDGE November 13, 2024.
monika
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2024 10:57:52 :::