Dismissed

Sonwati & Ors. v. Dharmvir & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 May 2014RSA/2723/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal arising from a suit regarding encroachment and adverse possession, holding that the appellants wasted court time by failing to produce respondents for settlement, thus no substantial question of law arose on the concurrent findings of courts below.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre; security of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be returned upon deposit of costs.

Sonwati & Ors. Vs Dharmvir & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

RSA No.2723 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.2723 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:09.05.2014

Sonwati and others

....Appellants

Versus

Dharamvir and others

....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶11

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶12

To be referred to reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present:- Mr. B.K.Bagri, Advocate for the appellants.

¶15

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)

¶16

In pursuance of order dated 13^th September, 2012, service was complete on respondents No.1 and 2 for 10.12.2012 but none appeared on their behalf on the said date, but still appellants insisted for adjournment to secure the presence of respondents No.1 and 2 to explore the possibility of amicable settlement. On the next date i.e. 29.04.2013, without securing the presence of respondents No.1 and 2, at the asking of learned counsel for the appellants, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court to explore the possibility of settlement of the dispute. However, various orders passed by the Mediator would show that the respondents never appeared and the case was returned to this

¶17

Kadian Savita 2014.05.14 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶18

RSA No.2723 of 2010 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

Court, yet on 09^th September, 2013, this Court had taken the view that the parties were unnecessarily wasting the Court's precious time. Thus, parties were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each before the Registrar of this Court, as security, in terms of Order 41 Rule 10 of the CPC. Thereafter, appellants sought many opportunities to comply with the aforesaid order. On 28.4. 2014, this Court again observed that it seems that respondents are not interested in the amicable settlement, yet appellants are making requests for adjournment to enable the appellants to procure the presence of respondents No.1 and 2 to find out an amicable settlement.

¶21

Today learned counsel representing the appellants has submitted before this Court that respondents are not forthcoming and thus are not interested in amicable settlement as noticed in the order dated 28.4.2014.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no doubt that since 13^th September, 2013, the appellants are wasting Court's precious time on the pretext of the amicable settlement between the parties whereas it is writ large from the facts that respondents are not interested.

¶23

In view thereof, the appellants have failed to bring respondents No.1 and 2 before this Court for any amicable settlement, this appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of order dated 28.4.2014 and the appellants are liable to pay heavy costs for

¶24

Kadian Savita 2014.05.14 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶25

RSA No.2723 of 2010 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

wasting Court's precious time.

¶28

At this stage, it may further be noticed that on the basis of the evidence on record, both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that defendants have raised construction by encroaching the western-northern side of the plaintiff-respondents' land. The appellants have taken the plea of adverse possession which could not be proved as held by both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence. Even before this Court, nothing could be pointed out to find fault with the findings of the Courts below.

¶29

In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial questions of law, as raised, arise in this appeal and the findings have been recorded by both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence.

¶30

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is dismissed with costs which are assessed at `5,000/-.

¶31

Needless to say, the costs be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court within one month from today. In case, the aforesaid amount of costs is deposited, the amount of `1,00,000/- deposited by the appellants in pursuance of order dated 09^th September, 2013, be returned back to the appellants.

¶32

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶33

May 09, 2014 savita

¶34

Kadian Savita 2014.05.14 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Sonwati & Ors. v. Dharmvir & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonwati & Ors. v. Dharmvir & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Piara Singh Vs Kashmir Singh and Ors.

Satnam Singh and Ors. Vs Balkar Singh and Anr.

Raj Bala Vs Sher Singh and Anr.

Vijay Singh Vs Shammi Gill and Ors.

Narinder Singh Vs Darshan Singh

Dalbir Singh Vs Manjit Kaur and Ors.