IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 205 RSA-3020-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 SHAMSHER SINGH …..APPELLANT Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH AND ORS. …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Jasdeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Y.S. Saini, Advocate for the respondents. ****** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Suit for permanent injuncon was filed by the palinff (now appellant represented through his LRs) in respect of suit land detailed in para No.1 in the plaint on the ground that plainff was owner in possession of suit land and defendants were interfering in his possession. It was found by the trial Court that though the revenue record reflected the suit land to be in the possession of the plainff, but by way of the order dated 04.04.1996 Ex.D1 and order dated 21.09.1995 Ex.D2, the plainff was not found to be in possession at the spot. Based upon these orders Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Anandpur Sahib, suit of the plainff was dismissed by the trial Court on 20.01.1997 and the findings were affirmed by the First Appellate Court by dismissing the appeal of the plainff-appellant on 29.02.2000. 2. While assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings by way of present Regular Second Appeal, the appellant also moved an applicaon bearing CM-2364-C-2001 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to place on record documents Annexures P-1 to P-4 by way of addional evidence. PRIYANKA 2025.07.03 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3020-2000 (O&M) -2- 3. The contenon of learned counsel is that the orders Ex. D1 and D2, which were the basis for the trial Court and Appellate Court to dismiss the suit of the plainff, were set aside by Addional Commissioner (Appeals), Paala Division, Paala on 14.06.1999 (Annexure P-1). 4. The perusal of the order dated 14.06.1999 (Annexure P-1) would reveal that the orders dated 21.09.1995 and 04.04.1996 of Assistant Collector IInd Grade (produced before the trial Court as Ex. D1 and D2) were set aside and the case was remanded back to Assistant Collector IInd Grade Nurpur Bedi for deciding the case afresh aCer giving opportunity to both the pares to give evidence. 5. None of the counsel for pares is able to disclose as to whether any fresh order was passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade pursuant to the order dated 14.06.1999 (Annexure P-1). 6. Thus, the posion in hand is that plainff’s possession was reflected in the revenue record. His case was disbelieved only because of orders Ex.D1 and D2. Those orders Ex. D1 and D2 have already been set aside. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are hereby set aside. A decree of permanent injuncon is passed whereby defendants-respondents are restrained from interfering in the possession of the plainff-appellant over the suit land. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) 02.07.2025 JUDGE pry Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No PRIYANKA 2025.07.03 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document