RSA-4820- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 230 Raj Bala and another The Tehsildar CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. judgment and decree dated District Judge defendants 15.06.1999 whereby the suit for permanent injunction was decreed. 2. before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant ‘the plaintiffs 3. purchased agricultural land measuring 2 kanals 10 marlas which is 50/318 -2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Raj Bala and another Versus The Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA None for the appellant. Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, AAG, Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The appellant-plaintiffs are in judgment and decree dated 28.08.2001, passed by the learned District Judge, Panipat vide which the appeal filed by was allowed reversing the 15.06.1999, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), whereby the suit for permanent injunction was decreed. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant plaintiffs’, whereas the respondents as Brief facts of the present case are that purchased agricultural land measuring 2 kanals 10 marlas which is 50/318 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-4820-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.09.2025 .… Appellants Sub Registrar and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA rashar, AAG, Haryana. plaintiffs are in second appeal against the , passed by the learned Additional e which the appeal filed by the respondent- reversing the judgment and decree dated Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat whereby the suit for permanent injunction was decreed. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants are being referred to as ‘the defendants’. Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs have purchased agricultural land measuring 2 kanals 10 marlas which is 50/318 second appeal against the Additional judgment and decree dated Panipat The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status to as have purchased agricultural land measuring 2 kanals 10 marlas which is 50/318 RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.12 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4820- shares of land comprised in Khata No. 68/83, 14/1(7-0), 16/2(0 village Bhapra Tehsil Samalkha from Mohinder Singh S/o Shri Mai Dhan for a consideration of 01.04.1992 befo levied ₹13,125/ affixed the property stamp duty on the registered sale deed. aggrieved, the plaintiff restraining the defendants from recovery the aforesaid amount of ₹13,125/- defendants from making in lock-up judgment and decree dated and restrained the defendants from recovering the amount in dispute. 4. Court against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial Court Vide judgment and decree dated defendants Regular Second Appeal. 5. facts and circumstance permanent injunction for restraining the amount of -2001 (O&M) -2- shares of land comprised in Khata No. 68/83, 0), 16/2(0-16), 17/1/1(5-8) and 17/2(2 village Bhapra Tehsil Samalkha from Mohinder Singh S/o Shri Mai Dhan for a consideration of ₹50,000/-, vide sale deed executed and registered on 01.04.1992 before the Sub Registrar, Samalkha 13,125/- on the aforesaid sale deed as the plaintiffs have not affixed the property stamp duty on the registered sale deed. aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injuncti restraining the defendants from recovery the aforesaid amount of as arrears of Land Revenue and further restraining the defendants from making personal arrest of the plaintiffs or detaining them up to get the recovery effected. judgment and decree dated 15.06.1999 decreed and restrained the defendants from recovering the amount in dispute. The defendants preferred an appeal before the Ist Appellate against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial Court Vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.2001 was allowed with special costs of Regular Second Appeal. Without adverting to the matter on merits, and circumstances that the plaintiff permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from recover amount of ₹13,125/- only, as arrears of Land Revenue shares of land comprised in Khata No. 68/83, rect. No. 20 killa No. 8) and 17/2(2-9) situated in the area of village Bhapra Tehsil Samalkha from Mohinder Singh S/o Shri Mai Dhan , vide sale deed executed and registered on re the Sub Registrar, Samalkha. Defendant No. 1 had on the aforesaid sale deed as the plaintiffs have not affixed the property stamp duty on the registered sale deed. Being have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovery the aforesaid amount of as arrears of Land Revenue and further restraining the personal arrest of the plaintiffs or detaining them The learned trial Court vide ecreed the suit of the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from recovering the amount in dispute. an appeal before the Ist Appellate against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. 28.08.2001, the appeal filed by the special costs of ₹5000/-. Hence, the present to the matter on merits, in the admitted that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for defendants from recovering the as arrears of Land Revenue, the present Second rect. No. 20 killa No. 9) situated in the area of village Bhapra Tehsil Samalkha from Mohinder Singh S/o Shri Mai Dhan , vide sale deed executed and registered on efendant No. 1 had on the aforesaid sale deed as the plaintiffs have not Being on restraining the defendants from recovery the aforesaid amount of as arrears of Land Revenue and further restraining the personal arrest of the plaintiffs or detaining them rned trial Court vide plaintiffs an appeal before the Ist Appellate . the Hence, the present in the admitted the , the present Second RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.12 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4820- Appeal is not maintainable in terms of Supreme Court in others, Law Finder Doc ID # 793552, second appeal would lie from any decree when the subject original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs. purpose behind enactment of Section 102 CPC is to reduce quantum of litigation so that Courts may not have to waste time where the stakes are very meagre and not to much co 6. reads as under 7. plaintiffs, despite the case having been called twice. Perusal of the order sheets reveals that on the last date of hearing also, the appellants have gone un-represented and the Registry was directed to issue fresh notice to the appellants as well as dated 05.09.2015 Mr.D.D. Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant has been received back with -2001 (O&M) -3- Appeal is not maintainable in terms of Supreme Court in Nagarpalika Thakurdwara vs. Khalil Ahmed and others, Law Finder Doc ID # 793552, wherein it has been held that second appeal would lie from any decree when the subject original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs. purpose behind enactment of Section 102 CPC is to reduce quantum of litigation so that Courts may not have to waste time where the stakes are very meagre and not to much consequence’. Para 15 of the aforesaid judgment is also relevant, which reads as under:- “15. So as to avail advantage of the provisions of Section 102 of the CPC, the subject matter of the original suit should be only recovery of money and that too, 25,000/-. If the subject matter of the suit is anything other than recovery of money or something more than recovery of money, provisions of Section 102 of the CPC cannot be invoked”. There is no representation on behalf of the appe plaintiffs, despite the case having been called twice. Perusal of the order sheets reveals that on the last date of hearing also, the appellants have represented and the Registry was directed to issue fresh notice to the appellants as well as their counsel. In compliance thereof, office report 05.09.2015 has been received to the effect that Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant has been received back with the judgment of the Hon’ble Nagarpalika Thakurdwara vs. Khalil Ahmed and wherein it has been held that ‘no second appeal would lie from any decree when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. The purpose behind enactment of Section 102 CPC is to reduce quantum of litigation so that Courts may not have to waste time where the stakes are nsequence’. Para 15 of the aforesaid judgment is also relevant, which So as to avail advantage of the provisions of Section 102 of the CPC, the subject matter of the original suit should be only recovery of money and that too, not exceeding Rs. . If the subject matter of the suit is anything other than recovery of money or something more than recovery of money, provisions of Section 102 of the CPC cannot be There is no representation on behalf of the appellant- plaintiffs, despite the case having been called twice. Perusal of the order- sheets reveals that on the last date of hearing also, the appellants have represented and the Registry was directed to issue fresh notice to In compliance thereof, office report has been received to the effect that notice issued to Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant has been received back with the judgment of the Hon’ble Nagarpalika Thakurdwara vs. Khalil Ahmed and ‘no matter of the . The purpose behind enactment of Section 102 CPC is to reduce quantum of litigation so that Courts may not have to waste time where the stakes are Para 15 of the aforesaid judgment is also relevant, which So as to avail advantage of the provisions of Section 102 of the CPC, the subject matter of the original suit should not exceeding Rs. . If the subject matter of the suit is anything other than recovery of money or something more than recovery of money, provisions of Section 102 of the CPC cannot be sheets reveals that on the last date of hearing also, the appellants have represented and the Registry was directed to issue fresh notice to In compliance thereof, office report notice issued to Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant has been received back with RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.12 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4820- the report ‘died’; whereas notices issued to the appellants h received back served. However, none has put in appearance on their behalf. 8. is hereby dismissed 9. 10.09.2025 rishu -2001 (O&M) -4- the report ‘died’; whereas notices issued to the appellants h received back served. However, none has put in appearance on their In view of the facts noticed above, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 10.09.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable the report ‘died’; whereas notices issued to the appellants have been received back served. However, none has put in appearance on their In view of the facts noticed above, the present second appeal Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ave been received back served. However, none has put in appearance on their the present second appeal RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.12 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.