Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chiranjee Alias Chiranjeev vs Kavita And Others on 14 May, 2024
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067317
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2600 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.05.2024
Chiranjee alias Chiranjeev
.....Appellant.
Versus
Kavita and others
.....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
*****
Argued by:- Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate
for the appellant.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree, as passed by
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonipat (for short 'the trial Court')
on 13.09.2022, whereby the Civil Suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs
(here-in-after to be referred as 'the plaintiffs') against the appellant-
defendant (here-in-after to be referred as 'the defendant') for seeking the
decree for possession of the suit property, has been decreed as well as by
the judgment and decree, handed down by learned District Judge, Sonipat
(for short 'the Lower Appellate Court') on 17.04.2023, qua the dismissal of
the appeal moved by the defendant against the above-said judgment and
decree rendered by the trial Court, he (defendant) has chosen to prefer the
instant appeal to lay challenge to the same.
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, as emanating
from the perusal of the record and culminating in the filing of the present
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067317
appeal, are that the plaintiffs had filed the afore-referred Civil Suit, while
averring that the Gram Panchayat had allotted the suit property, i.e a plot
measuring 100 square yards, to their predecessor-in-interest named Sate, on
12.01.1996. However, in July 2014, the defendant had encroached upon a
portion of the said property and despite their (plaintiffs') repeated requests,
he refused to vacate the same. The defendant filed his written-statement
contesting the claim of the plaintiffs therein, on various grounds. Then, the
parties were put to the trial by framing the issues and after appreciating and
evaluating the evidence as adduced by them on the record and hearing their
respective counsel, the trial Court decreed the above-mentioned Suit and
the first appeal, moved by the defendant, has also ended in its dismissal, as
already discussed in the opening para of this judgment.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant in the
instant appeal, at the preliminary stage and have also gone through the
record carefully.
4. Learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the trial
Court and the Lower Appellate Court have erred in relying upon the report
of the Local Commissioner regarding the demarcation of the suit property,
by ignoring the fact that he (LC) had not followed the requisite procedure
for conducting the proceedings for the said purpose, as no prior notice had
been given to the defendant about the same and moreover, the defendant
had also been allotted a plot by the Gram Panchayat in the year 1996 and
after taking the possession thereof, he had constructed his house in it but
the plaintiffs filed the afore-said Suit in October, 2015, i.e much after the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067317
expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and to add to it, the plaintiffs
had not affixed proper Court-fee on the Plaint and in these circumstances, it
becomes quite explicit that the impugned judgments and decrees are not
legally sustainable and hence, the same deserve to be set-aside.
5. However, the above-raised contentions are devoid of any force
because as regards the contention qua the Report of Local Commissioner, it
is worth-while to mention here that concededly, the defendant did not ever
file any objections in respect thereof and the Lower Appellate Court has
also categorically observed in Para No.23 in its judgment that PW3, i.e the
Local Commissioner, who happened to be a 'Kanungo' (a revenue official),
had placed the copies of the notices, as issued to the plaintiffs, defendant
and 'Numberdar', on the record and had claimed that the notice had been
duly served upon the defendant and his (defendant's) testimony, as DW1,
did go to show that he had not denied the factum of his having received the
notice prior to the demarcation of the suit property nor he had prayed for
any demarcation to counter the afore-referred Demarcation-Report nor had
placed any Report regarding such demarcation, on the file and rather, he
was completely silent about the demarcation-report, i.e the report of the
LC. The defendant has not been able to advance any cogent reason/ground
to explain/show as to how the above-mentioned observations are incorrect.
Even otherwise, a perusal of the copy of the written-statement, as filed by
the defendant in the Suit, reveals that throughout therein, he has not come
forward with his own candid version so as to rebut/negate/controvert the
specific averments of the plaintiffs, as canvassed in their Plaint, about the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067317
encroachment over the suit property by him. It being so, the afore-said
contention pales into insignificance.
6. So far as the contention regarding the Suit having not been
filed within the period of limitation is concerned, the plaintiffs, as pointed
out earlier, had categorically pleaded in the Plaint that the defendant had
forcibly taken the possession of a portion of the suit property in July, 2014.
Though in his written-statement, the defendant asserted that after taking the
possession of the plot allotted to him, he had constructed his house thereon
but he has not even disclosed the month or year of raising/completing such
construction. The plaintiffs had filed the Suit in October, 2015 and in view
of the above-narrated scenario, it is crystal clear that it had been filed well
within the prescribed period of limitation.
7. The last contention regarding the non-payment/non-affixation
of proper/requisite Court-fee by the plaintiffs on the Plaint, also does not
cut any ice with this Court because a bare reading of both the impugned
judgments shows that the defendant had not agitated the afore-mentioned
issue/plea before any of the Courts below and rather, as per the record, he
(defendant) himself had affixed/paid the Court-fee worth Rs.50/- only, at
the time of filing the first appeal before the Lower Appellate Court and the
Court-fee of Rs.57/- only, while moving the present appeal and hence, it
does not lie in his (defendant's) mouth to raise such plea. Even otherwise,
this contention/plea does not affect the merits of the instant appeal.
8. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the
impugned judgments and decrees, as passed by both the Courts below, do
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067317
not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity or perversity so as to
call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the same are, hereby,
upheld and the appeal in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
th
May 14 , 2024 JUDGE
Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
5 of 5
