RSA-9765-2018 (O& [109] Jagga Singh Puran Sing Coram : Present: PANKAJ J CM-18947 [1] satisfied condonatio [2] the appeal i RSA-9765 [3] [4] original po respondents [5] a form of cultivating (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR RSA-9765 Date of De a Singh and others versus n Singh and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Umesh Kumar Kanwar, A *** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) 18947-C-2018 For the reasons recorded in fied that the applicants-appellants onation of delay of 49 days in re-filing Application stands allowed an ppeal is condoned. 9765-2018 Defendants are in regular secon For the convenience, parties a nal position(s) as in civil suit i.e. app ndents as plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a suit, seeking d m of restraint against the defendants vating possession of the plaintiffs ove OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 9765-2018 (O&M) of Decision : 20.02.2025 …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocate for the appellants. ded in the application, this Court have made sufficient cause fo filing of the appeal. and delay of 49 days in re-filing o r second appeal. rties are hereinafter referred to by the .e. appellants as the defendants and th eking decree of permanent injunction ndants from interfering in the peacef fs over the suit land as described in th 1 ourt is use for filing of by their and the ction in peaceful d in the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-9765-2018 (O& head-note o [6] suit land as Initially, th over the su spent to ma being his L Plaintiffs f Provincial [7] possession are in poss application Fazilka. [8] [9] instance aft per docume Exhibits P (O&M) note of the plaint. Plaintiffs claimed that they ar and as gair marusi tenants under Cen lly, their father-Thakar Singh was ind the suit land. The same was uncultiv t to make the land cultivable. After de his LRs continued to be in cultivati tiffs further claimed to be regularl incial Government. Suit was contested by the defe ession of the plaintiffs and claimed th n possession of the suit land and a cation, seeking correction of the khas Court of the first instance fram “1. Whether the plaintiff is injunction as prayed for 2. Whether the suit of th OPD. 3. Whether the suit is bad CPC upon the defendan 4. Relief. ” While returning findings on nce after analyzing evidence threadba ocumentary evidence placed on reco P-1 & P-2 i.e. jamabandi for the y are in cultivating possession of th er Central Government since year 198 inducted by the Central Governme ncultivable initially. Huge amount wa fter death of Thakar Singh, the plaintif ltivating possession over the suit lan egularly paying rent in the name e defendant-appellants, who denied th med that its defendant Nos.1 to 3, wh and also relied upon pendency of khasra girdawri before AC 2nd Grad e framed the following issues:- ff is entitled to the relief of permane d for? OPPP f the plaintiff is not maintainable bad for non-service of notice u/s 8 dants? OPD. gs on Issue No.1, Court of the fir readbare came to the conclusion that a n record by the plaintiffs in a form o the year 2004-2005, 1999-2000, nam 2 n of the ar 1986. ernment unt was laintiffs uit land. ame of nied the 3, who y of an Grade, anent nable? u/s 80 the first that as form of 0, name RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-9765-2018 (O& of father o cultivation. to prove p having bee defendants plaintiffs [10] Court, defe [11] evidence ca possession to prove th taken by th the revenue [12] of the learn that can be proved on r [13] Act, 1918 Versus Pri under :- (O&M) ther of the plaintiffs-Thakar Singh vation. Further they have two receipt ove payment of lease money. Thus, g been proved on record and there dants to breach the presumption atta tiffs are entitled for decree of permane Dis-satisfied with the finding t, defendants preferred appeal. Learned First Appellate C nce came to the conclusion that the d ession have relied upon ocular evidenc ove that no crop was ever sown on th by the witnesses in their testimony evenue record. Counsel for the appellants thou learned Courts below, but has not be can be read to hold that the presum ed on record by the plaintiffs stands reb Scope of second appeal under 1918 came up for consideration befo s Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors. 2019(17 “14. The Division Bench of in a judgment reported in Sa (Punjab) 85 set aside the judg Singh is reflected in the column o eceipts of challans Exhibits P-4 and Thus, the possession of the plaintif there being no evidence led by th on attached to the record of rights, t rmanent injunction. indings recorded by the learned Tri ate Court, after re-appreciating th t the defendants in order to prove the vidence. All their witnesses have trie on the land in dispute. The said stan is beyond pleadings and is again ts though has tried to assail the finding not been able to point out any evidenc resumption attached to record of rig rebutted. under Section 41 of the Punjab Cour n before Apex Court in Randhir Kau 9(17) SCC 71 wherein it was held a of Punjab and Haryana High Cou Sadhu v. Mst. Kishni, 1980 AI judgment of the learned Single Benc 3 umn of and P-7 laintiffs by the , the ed Trial ing the ve their ve tried id stand against findings vidence of right Courts Kaur held as Court 0 AIR Bench RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-9765-2018 (O& (O&M) in an intra court appeal in ter existed prior to 1976, and held "12. The scope of seco 100 of the Civil Proced Punjab Courts Act has a number of times by court, that is, the Supr counsel for the appella in this regard to D Hanymayya [AIR 1 Madamanchi Ramappa 1963 Supreme Court Hafiz Abdul Hai [196 Shaikh v. Soleman Bib Supreme Court 163.]. nutshell, lay down th entertain a second appe finding of fact, however may seem to be. Nor do first appellate Court is u make it any the less a fin Court has, therefore, second appeal with the appellate court based relevant evidence. Their that the only ground on to be competent is wh procedure and not mer fact. xx xx xx 14. In view of the ab the view that the lear jurisdiction in setting a in terms of the provisions of law as held as under: second appeal as envisaged by sectio rocedure Code and section 41 of th has been a matter of judicial scrutin by this court as well as by the fin upreme Court of India. The learne ellant has actually made a referenc Detty Paitabhiramaswami v. 1959 Supreme Court 57. appa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa [AI urt 1633.], Bithal Dass Khanna [1969 S.C. Notes 481.] and Afsa Bibi [(1976) 2 SCC 142 : AIR 197 63.]. These pronouncements; in n that there is no jurisdiction appeal on the ground of a erroneou ever gross or inexecusable the erro r does the fact that the finding of th t is upon some documentary evidenc a finding of fact. A Judge of the Hig re, no jurisdiction to interfere the findings of fact given by the fir ased upon an appreciation of th heir Lordships have further observe on which such an appeal can be sa where there is an error in law o merely on an error on a question e above discussion, we are clearly learned Single Judge exceeded h ng aside the findings of the fact o 4 as it ection of the rutiny e final arned erence v. S. 57.], [AIR na v. Afsar 1976 in a on to neous error of the idence High re in e first of the served e said aw or ion of rly of ed his act on RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-9765-2018 (O& 14. Bench in Court) 473 [15] findings of garb of sec (O&M) issue No. 2. The provisio unambiguous, there wa those findings. We thus judgment of the learne judgment and decree p parties are, however left 15. A perusal of the aforesa jurisdiction in second appea findings of fact on the grou however, gross or inexcusabl findings of fact will also incl documentary evidence. The second appeal is only wher procedure and not merely an e The said dictum was further el h in Satyender and Ors. Versus Sar 4732 as under :- “xxxx xxxx xxxx 17. Be that as it may, though t substantial question of law was Punjab Courts Act, requires th considered in second appeal wh custom or usage having the for failed to determine some materi having the force of law. Ther "question of law". In other wo where court has to re-examine settled by the Trial Court and the In view of above, this Court is of fact have been recorded by the of second appeal, this Court cannot visions of section 100 being clear an was no scope for interference wi hus allow the appeal and set aside th arned Single Judge and affirm th ee passed by the District Judge. Th r left to bear their own costs. resaid judgments would show that th ppeal is not to interfere with th ground that findings are erroneou sable the error may seem to be. Th include the findings on the basis The jurisdiction to interfere in th where there is an error in law o an error on a question of fact.” ther elaborately echoed by three Judge Saroj and Ors. 2022 AIR (Suprem gh the requirement of formulation of was not necessary, yet Section 41 of t es that only such decisions are to l which are contrary to law or to som e force of law or the court below ha aterial issue of law or custom or usa herefore, what is important is still words, second appeal is not a foru ine or re-appreciate questions of fa d the Appellate Court.........” ourt is of the considered view that p by the learned Courts below. Under th nnot re-appreciate the evidence. The 5 ar and e with ide the m the e. The at the th the neous, e. The sis of in the aw or Judges preme n of a of the to be some have usage still a forum of fact hat pure nder the . There RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-9765-2018 (O& being no pe reason to in [16] [17] disposed of 20.02.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (O&M) no perversity or misreading of evide n to interfere in the findings recorded Dismissed. All pending miscellaneous ed off. .2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable evidence, this Court does not find an orded by the learned Courts below. neous application(s), if any, stand (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 6 find any stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.07 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document