In this Second Appeal, the appellant challenged a permanent injunction decree in a possession suit. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the Khasra Girdawari application was inadmissible additional evidence filed during suit pendency.
The appeal is dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed off.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-841-2020 (O&M) Reserved on : 14.10.2024 Pronounced on : 29.10.2024
BALJIT SINGH
....Appellant
VERSUS
GURDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS ....Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate for Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
area of Village Pringri, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran and further for restraining the defendants (appellant and respondent No.3 herein) forever
AMAN JAIN 2024.10.29 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-841-2020
-2-
from taking possession of the suit property by force or in any manner except in due course of law. It was averred by the plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2 that the defendants (appellant and respondents No.3 herein) have no right, title or interest in the suit property and that they were trying to interfere in their peaceful possession and were also threatening to dispossess them from the suit property.
AMAN JAIN 2024.10.29 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-841-2020
-3-
6. Relief.
AMAN JAIN 2024.10.29 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-841-2020
-4-
appellant is in possession of the suit property and an application for correction in the Khasra Girdawari was also filed by him, however, a perusal of the application reveals that the same was only for correction of the Khasra Girdawari for the year 2017. On a pointed query by the Court as to whether the revenue record prior to the year 2017 was in the name of the defendant No.1-appellant, learned counsel has candidly admitted that there is nothing on the record. Further still, in the order dated 16.11.2019 dismissing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC it has been noticed by the First Appellate Court that the application for correction of the Khasra Girdawari was filed during the pendency of the civil suit and that the Khasra Girdawari sought to be led as additional evidence was changed during the pendency of the suit. There is no plausible reason forthcoming for not producing the documents at the stage of the trial. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1appellant has not been able to point out to any cogent and reliable evidence on the record to even remotely suggest that the defendants (appellant and respondent No.3 herein) were in possession of the suit property.
29.10.2024 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No
AMAN JAIN 2024.10.29 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for correction of Khasra Girdawari constitutes valid additional evidence to prove possession?
Whether the Second Appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal which was devoid of merit?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baljit Singh
Gurdeep Singh
Alka Sarin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
