This regular second appeal challenged the decree granting permanent injunction and a lower appeal dismissal. The court referred Section 100 CPC precedents and found no substantial question of law, dismissing the appeal as the lower courts correctly appreciated that the plaintiff was the lawful lessee.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Regular Second Appeal No.3476 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No.3476 of 2007
Date of decision: 07.08.2009
Amrit Lal, son of Arjan Dass, r/o Partap Gate, Kaithal.
..... Appellant.
Versus
Sudesh Kumar son of Amar Nath, r/o Kaithal, district Kaithal.
..... Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present:Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary, , Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
Sham Sunder, J.
This Regular Second
Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2005, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge
Regular Second Appeal No.3476 of 2007 2
(Senior Division), Kaithal, vide which it decreed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction and the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2007, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Kaithal, vide which it dismissed the appeal.
Regular Second Appeal No.3476 of 2007 3
designs, left with no alternative, a suit for permanent injunction, was filed.
Regular Second Appeal No.3476 of 2007 4
“1- Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land fully detailed in para no.1 of the plaint ?OPP
2- If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction sought ? OPP
3- Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
4- Whether the suit is not maintainable ?OPD
5- Relief.”
Regular Second Appeal No.3476 of 2007 5
District Judge, Kaithal, vide its judgment and decree dated 06.10.2007.
the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the appellant/defendant.
Regular Second Appeal No.3476 of 2007 6
possession of the property, in dispute, as a lessee of the Haryana Wakf Board and the defendant (now appellant) had got no concern with the same. He further submitted that earlier the plaintiff (now respondent) filed a suit, with respect to the same property, which was dismissed, and, as such, the second suit was not maintainable. He further submitted that the Courts below, illegally decreed the suit and, as such, the same were liable to be set aside.
Regular Second Appeal No.3476 of 2007 7
the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at, by the trial Court, and first Appellate Court, even if, the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention, was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgments of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. It is evident from the evidence of Ibrahim Khan Clerk in Punjab Wakf Board, (PW-1) that the plaintiff was a lessee of the said Board in respect of the property, in dispute. This property was leased out, in favour of the plaintiff, vide allotment letter Ex.P1. Sudesh Kumar son of Amar Nath, plaintiff, (PW-2), also stated that he had been leased out the property, in dispute, by the Haryana Wakf Board and had
Regular Second Appeal No.3476 of 2007 8
been in possession thereof. Baldev Raj son of Ram Lal, (PW-3) also corroborated the statement of both these witnesses. No objection certificate Ex.P2, and receipt Ex.P3 regarding the payment of lease money, were also issued by the Haryana Wakf Board, in favour of the plaintiff, which duly corroborated the tenancy, in his favour. Even the plea taken up by the plaintiff, in the plaint that he was the lessee over the property, in dispute, of the Haryana Wakf Board, was not specifically denied, in the written statement. The Courts below, on proper scrutiny of the evidence of the plaintiff, as also of the defendant, rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the property, in dispute, as a lessee, and the defendant had no concern therewith. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
Regular Second Appeal No.3476 of 2007 9
for permanent injunction, was filed by the plaintiff, which was dismissed and, as such, the second suit was not maintainable. It is evident from para no.10 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court, that from Ex.D-3, copy of the order, it was proved that the earlier suit was dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, as such, the second suit, on the same cause of action, was not barred, under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
Regular Second Appeal No.3476 of 2007 10
07.08.2009, dinesh
( Sham Sunder ) Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial court and first appellate court.
Whether the second suit is maintainable when the first suit on the same cause of action was dismissed in default.
Whether the plaintiff was lawfully in possession of the suit property as a lessee of the Haryana Wakf Board.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar PillaiReferred¶37
Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533 · Who else cites this
Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik SinghReferred¶37
Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270 · Who else cites this
H.P. Pyarejan Vs. DasappaReferred¶37
H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228 · Who else cites this
Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and othersReferred¶37
Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amrit Lal
Sudesh Kumar
Sham Sunder
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
