IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 109 CM-400-C-2023 in/and RSA-117-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 20.04.2026 Rameshwar Dass …..Appellant Vs. Sheo Ram and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-403-C-2023: This is an applicaon under Secon 5 of the Limitaon Act read with Secon 151 CPC to condone the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons menoned in the applicaon duly supported by affidavit of the appellant, delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Applicaon stands disposed of accordingly. CM-400-C-2023: This is an applicaon under Secon 151 CPC to condone the delay of 52 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons menoned in the applicaon duly supported by affidavit of the appellant, delay of 52 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Applicaon stands disposed of accordingly. M ain case.: The plainff–appellant has preferred the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the learned NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-400-C-2023 in/and RSA-117-2023 (O&M) Courts below, whereby his suit seeking a decree of mandatory injuncon for recovery of damages allegedly caused to his machinery and arcles has been dismissed. The learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 24.04.2019 dismissed the suit, and the said findings have been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 25.05.2022. 2. The case set up by the plainff was that he had been a tenant in the shop in queson since the year 1982 and was carrying on the business of a motor mechanic therein. It was alleged that the defendants, with a view to dispossess him and cause financial loss, damaged the roof of the shop, dug a pit nearby resulng in accumulaon of rainwater, and further removed arcles and machinery worth approximately ₹4,00,000/-. On these asserons, the plainff sought compensaon by way of damages. 3. The defendants contested the suit by denying all allegaons and asserng, inter alia, that the property in queson had already been acquired by the Government and that the plainff had concocted a false story. It was also pleaded that no incident of the< or damage, as alleged, had ever taken place and that even inquiries conducted on complaints made by the plainff did not substanate his allegaons. 4. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the pares, the learned trial Court returned a categorical finding that the plainff had failed to prove any wrongful act on the part of the defendants, which could have resulted in the alleged damage. It was noced that no independent or reliable evidence had been produced to establish that the defendants had removed any arcles or caused damage to the structure. Even the plainff, in his cross-examinaon, admi>ed that he had not witnessed the alleged acts and could not name any person responsible for the same. The learned trial Court further observed that no expert evidence had been led to show that the damage to the roof was the result of any deliberate act rather than natural wear and tear. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. 5. The learned First Appellate Court, upon reappraisal of the Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-400-C-2023 in/and RSA-117-2023 (O&M) enre evidence, concurred with the findings of the learned trial Court and held that the plainff’s case rested on mere asserons without any substanve proof. It was further held that the essenal requirement of establishing a direct and proximate nexus between the alleged acts of the defendants and the damage claimed had not been sasfied. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 6. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence led by the plainff and have erroneously discarded the tesmony of his witnesses. However, upon consideraon of the ma>er, this Court finds no merit in the said contenon. 7. It is well se>led that the jurisdicon of this Court in a second appeal under Secon 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to substanal quesons of law. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless the same are shown to be perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or suffering from a patent illegality. In the present case, the findings returned by both the Courts below are based on a proper and cogent appreciaon of the evidence on record. 8. The plainff has failed to produce any credible evidence to substanate the allegaon that the defendants had either removed his machinery or caused damage to the shop. The absence of eyewitness tesmony, coupled with the lack of expert evidence regarding the alleged damage to the structure, clearly weakens the case of the plainff. Furthermore, no material has been placed on record to establish a causal connecon between the alleged acts of the defendants and the loss claimed by the plainff. The findings recorded by the Courts below, therefore, cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to law. 9. The arguments raised on behalf of the appellant essenally seek a re-appreciaon of evidence, which is impermissible in second Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-400-C-2023 in/and RSA-117-2023 (O&M) appeal. No substanal queson of law arises for consideraon in the present case. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranng interference. 11. Consequently, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed, being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applicaons, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 20, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document