Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil vs Rajpal And Ors on 20 November, 2025
Page 1 of 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
232
Date of decision: 20.11.2025
RSA-4208-2015(O&M)
Sunil
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Rajpal & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- None for the appellant.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Antil, Advocate
for the respondents.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the
concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit
of the appellant for permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the
Courts below.
2. Order sheets shows that although the present appeal is of the
year 2015; yet notice in the main appeal is to be issued. Notice in the
application for condonation of delay of 32 days was issued as far back as on
15.12.2015. Thereafter, the matter has been primarily adjourned repeatedly
at request of or due to non-appearance of learned counsel for the appellant.
Today again none appears on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the
1 of 4
respondents/defendants on the other hand has taken this Court through the
record of the case. From the same, the following situation emerges; as
recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gohana, in Para 10 of
its judgment dated 15.02.2012, which reads as follows:-
"10. The perusal of plaint, testimony of plaintiff as well the
perusal of site plan Ex.P-1, clearly proves that the dimensions of
the suit land submitted by plaintiff are vague and ambiguous
and do not depict the correct position of the suit land. In the site
plan Ex. P-1, neither any dimension of the suit land is given by
the plaintiff nor the dimensions of plot of defendants is given.
Even the dimensions of the suit land depicted in the writing
dated 12.1.1998 Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3, do not match with the site
plan, Ex.P-1. As such, the site plan of suit land submitted by the
plaintiff is factually wrong. A local commissioner was appointed
by the Court in the present case to ascertain the existing state of
affairs, who prepared the site plan of suit land as per actual spot.
As per the site plan prepared by the Local Commissioner, the
boundary of the plot of the plaintiff is adjacent to Verandah
shown as JFGH in the site plan. Ex.P-1, whereas the plaintiff has
shown land measuring 12 feet further from the said Verandah in
his site plan. The site plan, Ex.P-1, submitted by the plaintiff does
not tally with the site plan prepared by the local commissioner,
which itself reveals that the dimensions of the suit land given by
the plaintiff are wrong and the intention of the plaintiff is to grab
the land of defendants in the garb of the injunction suit."
2 of 4
3. The said findings have been buttressed by the findings
recorded by the learned District Judge, Sonipat in its judgment and decree
dated 11.03.2015, which reads as follows:-
"13. Now, when the plaintiff stepped into witness box as PW-1,
he has admitted that property of defendants is situated
towards the western side of their property. He has also stated
that in the western and southern side of the property of
defendants, there is Sarbhangi Dera and further stated that in
the eastern side, their property lies. He has also admitted that
there were three parcels of the land in equal shares i.e. one
belonging to Rajpal son of Kadam Singh, second belonging to
Banarasi and third belonging to Samunder.
14. Now, in this case, the report of Local Commissioner do show
three equal shares of the land in question i.e. one belonging to
Banarsi, one belonging to Samunder and one portion has been
marked with letters ABDC, which is on the western side of the
plot belonging to Samunder, now owned by plaintiff, and thus,
as per the above statement of plaintiff, belongs to defendants.
It is also the case of plaintiff that plaintiff constructed a
verandah there. Thus, the plot of plaintiff is upto the verandah,
shown in the site plan submitted by the plaintiff and the
property marked by letters ABDC belonged to the defendants.
A further perusal of site plan Ex.P-1 shows that towards the
southern side of plot of Samunder, now belonging to plaintiff,
a verandah has been shown, however, in site plan Ex.P-1, this
verandah has been shown in the center. Thus, the plaintiff is
not proved to be in possession of the land lying towards the
western side of verandah, which, as is evident from the
3 of 4
aforesaid facts and circumstances, as discussed above belongs
to the defendants and the verandah is the southern boundary
of plot owned by the plaintiff."
4. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Shivali
Enterprises v. Godawari (Deceased) (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 2034559; has
held that this Court in 2nd Appeal, has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the
concurrent findings. It is held as under:-
"14. This Court, in the case of Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh
and Others (2019) 17 SCC 71, after considering the scope of
interference under the old section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908 (for short "CPC") and Section 41 of the Punjab Act, has observed
thus:
"15. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments would show
that the jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the
findings of fact on the ground that findings are erroneous,
however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be. The
findings of fact will also include the findings on the basis of
documentary evidence. The jurisdiction to interfere in the second
appeal is only where there is an error in law or procedure and
not merely an error on a question of fact."
5. Keeping in view the above-said position, the present appeal
stands dismissed.
6. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
(Nidhi Gupta)
20.11.2025 Judge
Sunena
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
