The High Court of Punjab and Haryana condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the regular second appeal. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact against the appellants by the trial and first appellate courts were sustainable and dismissed the appeal.
Delay in filing and re-filing the appeal was condoned; regular second appeal dismissed.
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.
-1-
RSA No.354 of 2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.354 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Order: 28.08.2017
Rajbir and another
..Appellants
Versus
Anil Kuamr
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for respondent no.1.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
C.M.Nos.991-92-C-2013
Prayer in these applications is for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in these applications, which are supported by an affidavits, the delay of 1 day in filing and delay of 211 days in re-filing the appeal are condoned.
Applications are allowed.
RSA No.354 of 2013
Defendants are appellants before this Court. Defendants have challenged the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below.
Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming to be in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff claimed that pursuant to a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 05.02.2002, sale deed
was executed in his favour with the help of the Court. Plaintiff prayed for Naresh Kumar 2017.09.14 14:34
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-2-
RSA No.354 of 2013 (O&M)
decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession.
Defendants contested the suit claiming that he is a biswedar of the village and therefore he is in possession of the property.
Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on the file, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
Defendants-appellants filed the first appeal. Learned first appellate Court has also upheld the findings of the trial Court after reappreciating the evidence available on the file.
Learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the contentions raised before the first appellate Court. Learned first appellate Court being last Court of finding of fact has dealt with the arguments and returned the findings of fact against the appellants.
Hence, there is no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below. The regular second appeal is ordered to be dismissed.
| August 28, 2017 nt |
(ANIL |
KSHETARPAL) JUDGE |
|---|---|---|
| Whether speaking/reasoned | : Yes/No | |
| Whether reportable | : Yes/No |
Naresh Kumar 2017.09.14 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing and re-filing the second appeal should be condoned.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below must be interfered with.
Rajbir and another
Anil Kuamr
Anil Kshetarpal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
