Dismissing the second appeal and an application for condonation of delay, the High Court found no substantial question of law arising in a civil suit regarding recovery of property possession.
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.
RSA No.928 of 2015 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.928 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision.10.08.2015
Gian Chand since deceased through LRs
.......Appellant
Versus
Roshan Lal since deceased through LRs
......Respondent
Present: None for appellant.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.2737-C of 2015
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 119 days
in filing the second appeal is condoned.
Application is allowed.
RSA No.928 of 2015
PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.08.14 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
RSA No.928 of 2015 (O&M)
representation for the appellants. I have examined the records and I would find that the suit is for recovery of possession of property contending that the defendants had trespassed in the property. The plaintiffs sought to establish the defendants' manner of possession to be unlawful. The contention of the defendants is that whole construction could not have come up without any form of objection from the plaintiffs and it was itself a pointer to the fact that the plaintiffs had never objected to the construction made by the defendants. The plaintiffs wanted to explain that they had gone to PGI for treatment of 3rd plaintiff's son and the defendants encroached upon the property in dispute and made construction. Even such an explanation could hardly be a justification to let the defendant put up a whole construction which ought to have taken several months for completion. The Court has found that there is no proof by appropriate demarcation of how the defendants have made any construction within the plaintiffs' property. The said finding of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit was affirmed by the Appellate Court and the appeal was also dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
August 10, 2015 Pankaj*
PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.08.14 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law exists for consideration in this second appeal.
Whether delay of 119 days in filing the second appeal should be condoned.
Gian Chand since deceased through LRs
Roshan Lal since deceased through LRs
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
