DHARMA SON OF RUPE CHAND, RESIDENT OF VI versus BALBIR SINGH SON OF JAI SINGH, RESIDENT

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

DHARMA SON OF RUPE CHAND, RESIDENT OF VI v. BALBIR SINGH SON OF JAI SINGH, RESIDENT - RSA-368-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 244 (30 November 2005)

R.S.A. NO.368 OF 2005 (O & M) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.368 OF 2005 (O & M) DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 16, 2006

Dharma son of Rupe Chand, resident of village Israna, District Panipat.

.....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

Balbir Singh son of Jai Singh, resident of village Israna, District Panipat and Others.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

. . .

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT:- Mr. Sandeep Ghangas, Advocate, for the appellant.

. . .

JUDGMENT

For the reasons stated in the application (C.M. No.931-C of 2005), delay of 40 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

The plaintiff having concurrently failed before both the Courts below has approached this Court through the present regular second appeal. He filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that he was owner in possession and that the defendants were trying to forcibly dig a khal in his land.

Defendant No.1 contested the suit and claimed that khal in question was dug in pursuance of the Orders passed by the Chief Canal Officer and that the matter had attained finality before the Canal Authorities.

Jurisdiction of the Civil Court was also challenged.

The learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff had not disclosed the factum of proceedings before the Canal Authorities. On that R.S.A. NO.368 OF 2005 (O & M) [2]

account, suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

The matter was taken up in appeal.

The learned first Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned Trial Court. It has also been held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

(VINEY MITTAL)

JANUARY 16, 2006 JUDGE

avin

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.