IN THE HI 115 Bohar Singh Union of India CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, CM-14517-C- condonation o which is supp exceptions and MAIN CASE the concurren plaintiff for from interferi been dismisse dated 03.11.2 Division, Moga E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Vs. ndia & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advoc Mr. Parit Aggarwal, Advoca for the appellant. *** PTA, J. -2019 This is an application u on of delay of 109 days in re-filing th After going through the supported by affidavit, the same s and delay of 109 days in re-filing th The plaintiff is in second ap rrent findings of the learned Courts or permanent injunction restrainin rfering in possession of the plainti issed by both the Courts below i. 11.2016 passed by the learned oga passed in Civil Suit No.RT-17 D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-5132-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA dvocate with vocate n under Section 151 CPC for ng the appeal. the contents of the application, me is allowed subject to all just g the appeal is condoned. d appeal before this Court against urts below whereby the suit of the aining the respondent/defendant aintiff over the suit property, has w i.e. vide judgment and decree ed Additional Civil Judge, Senior 17 of 29.01.2013; which was duly 4 for on, ust nst he nt as ee ior uly SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document affirmed by th decree dated 2. status before t 3. was that the Chand Singh certificate wa Sukhchain Sing possession by said Sukhchai property is ass appearing in t Singh leased o and put the pl alleged that property in d plaintiff/appel ground that th Singh vide lea the suit prop certificate dat y the learned Additional District Ju ted 26.11.2018 in Civil Appeal No.17 The parties shall hereinaft ore the learned trial Court. The case as set out by the the Suit property was purchased gh in an open auction conducte was also issued by the defenda Singh; and at the time of purchase n by defendant No.1 in the proper chain Singh started residing in pr s assessed to house tax and the nam in the house tax record. It was fur ed out the property in dispute vide e plaintiff in possession as lessee u at the Defendants want to take in dispute for which they have go ppellant filed the present, suit for p at the plaintiff derives title to the s lease deed dated 25.10.2012 (Ex. property from Govt. of India in dated 3.9.1980 (Ex. P-5). Both the t Judge, Moga vide judgment and 178 dated 07.12.2016. inafter be referred to as per their the appellant/plaintiff in his suit sed by Sukhchain Singh son of cted by Government and sale endant No.1/Union of India to ase, Sukhchain Singh was put in perty in dispute as owner; and n property in dispute and the name of Sukhchain Singh is duly s further averred that Sukhchain ide lease deed dated 25.10.2012 ee under Sukhchain Singh. It was take forcible possession of the e got no right. Accordingly, the for permanent injunction on the he suit property from Sukhchain (Ex. P-1) who in turn purchased in an open auction vide sale the Courts below dismissed the 4 nd eir SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document claim of the p possession. 4. Darshan Singh allowed vide o was filed on objections qua suit property However, the the Court belo their possessio official to pro plaintiff alon this Hon'ble Co 5. appeal is liabl both the Cour prove his pos derived title a land through o 11 of its judgm he plaintiff on the ground that he During the pendency o Singh filed a petition for ejectme ide order dated 18.11.2009. The exe on 14.6.2010. The plaintiff along qua the same claiming that the pr rty was allotted to them by the G the objections of the appellant/pla below on the ground that the obje ession or the existence of any conv prove the authenticity of the al long with Sukhchain Singh preferre le Court which was also dismissed v In view of the above un liable to be dismissed. Even otherw ourts below have held that the pl possession over the suit land up tle as lessee from Sukhchain Singh gh open auction from the Governm dgment dated 3.11.2016 has given “….Perusal of the entire pleading the plaintiff has failed to stand o case as the plaintiff has failed to t he was not able to prove his y of the above litigation, one ctment against PSEB which was execution of the above said order long with Sukhchain Singh filed e property in dispute/the present e Government in the year 1980. t/plaintiff were dismissed by both objectors were not able to prove conveyance deed or examine any e allotment letter (Ex. P-5). The ferred ESA No. 10 of 2023 before ed vide order dated 5.4.2024. e undisputed facts, the present herwise, vide concurrent findings, e plaintiff had miserably failed to upon which he claims to have ingh who had purchased the suit rnment. The ld. Trial court in para ven the following finding: – dings of the parties shows that nd on his own legs to prove his d to prove the fact that he is in 4 ne as er led nt 80. th ve ny he re nt gs, to ve uit ara SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fro 6. controvert or d 7. 8. 23.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo possession of the same land whic Singh has purchased through a Government as the lease deed da it is of the land whose file No. 15/3/s(?) however the document Ex-P5 so produced by the plainti Sukchain Singh mentions file No numbers on the lease deed i.e Ex Ex-P5 does not tally with each oth plaintiff has taken the same lan Singh which he has allegedly pu from the Government and furthe Ex. PW9/A shows that the same 15/V/s….” Learned Senior Counsel fo t or deny the above said facts. In view of the above, prese Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No which he alleges that Sukhchain gh an open auction from the ed dated 25.10.2012 shows that No. of the conveyance deed is ent i.e. the conveyance deed i.e. laintiff allegedly in the name of e No. 15/V/s and both the file e Ex-P1 and conveyance Deed i.e. h other to prove the fact that the e land on lease from Sukhchain y purchased in an open auction rther perusal of Ex. PW5/A and ame pertains to 15/3/s and not el for the appellant is unable to resent appeal is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 4 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document