RSA-585-1999 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-585-1999 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.09.2025 Jai Singh ...Appellant Versus Jan Sudhar Sami' ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Kamal Deep Sehra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Indresh Goel, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-6624-C-2025 & CM-6625-C-2025 The main case i.e. RSA-585-1999 was earlier dismissed in default vide order dated 08.07.2024. These applica'ons have been moved for restora'on; and for condoning the delay of 285 days in filing the applica'on for restora'on. Despite opportunity, no reply has been filed by the respondent. For the reasons as men'oned in the applica'on, both the applica'ons are allowed. Delay of 285 days in filing the applica'on for restora'on is hereby condoned. The applica'on for restora'on is accepted. Order dated 08.07.2024 is hereby recalled. Appeal is restored to its original number and taken up for hearing today itself. RSA-585-1999 Arguments heard. 2. A suit for a decree of permanent injunc'on was filed by the plain'ff-appellant claiming the suit property to be co-owned by him along Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.23 16:20 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-585-1999 (O&M) [2] with other co-sharers and alleging that defendant - Sami' was bent upon to encroach the same and raise construc'on thereon. As per the stand of the defendant, plain'ff was neither owner nor in possession of the suit land. Suit land was rather a public park/play ground. 3. The Trial Court framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence. The Local Commissioner was also appointed, who a?er sending no'ce to both the par'es, submi@ed his report. 4. The Trial Court did not find merit in the suit and so the same was dismissed on 27.03.1997. The First Appellate Court affirmed the findings and dismissed the appeal of the plain'ff-appellant on 04.09.1998. 5. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel submits that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. 6. This Court does not find any merit in the conten'on. 7. It is no'ced that findings have been returned by the Courts below based upon the report of the Local Commissioner (Ex.D-1), who had also prepared a site plan (Ex.D-2). The spot was inspected by him a?er no'ce to both the par'es. It was found that suit property was a park and was being used and maintained by the defendant - society. 8. This Court does not find any ground to disturb the concurrent findings of facts, as recorded by the Courts below, which are found to be based upon proper apprecia'on of evidence on record. 9. As such, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. 22.09.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.23 16:20 I agree to specified portions of this document