IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 112 RSA-2054-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 30.04.2026 Sachin Chhikara …..Appellant Vs. Rohit and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Advocate and Mr. M.S. Khillan, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-7144-C-2025; CM-7143-C-2025: These two applicaons have been moved for condoning the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal; and 92 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons menoned in the applicaon supported by the affidavit of the appellant, both the applicaons are allowed. Delay of 55 days in filing the appeal and 92 days in re-filing the appeal are hereby condoned. Main Case and CM-7146-C-2025: The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant–plainff against the judgment & decree dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Addional District Judge, Karnal, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment & decree dated 11.04.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, dismissing the suit of the plainff for permanent NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.01 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2054-2025 (O&M) injuncon, were upheld. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the plainff is that he claims himself to be owner in possession of a poron of a shop situated at Old G.T. Road, Karnal, measuring about 3.76 square yards, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 04.01.2012. It was further pleaded that he is also in possession of an adjoining poron as a tenant and has been running a cooler repair business from the suit property for the last several years. According to the plainff, his possession over the suit property is peaceful and uninterrupted. The grievance of the plainff is that defendants No.1 and 2, who allegedly purchased a poron adjoining the suit property, started interfering in his possession and threatened to dispossess him forcibly, compelling him to file the suit seeking a decree of permanent injuncon restraining the defendants from dispossessing him and from interfering in his possession. 3. The defendants contested the suit by filing wriCen statements, wherein the claim of the plainff regarding ownership as well as possession was specifically denied. It was pleaded that defendants No.1 and 2 had purchased the property in dispute and are in possession thereof, and that the plainff has no right, tle or interest in the same. Various preliminary objecons regarding maintainability, locus standi, suppression of material facts and mis-joinder of pares were also raised. 4. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the necessary issues, including the issue ‘whether the plain ff is en tled to a decree for permanent injunc on restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit property’. The pares led their respecve evidence. The plainff examined himself and two witnesses and relied upon certain sale deeds, site plan and photographs, whereas the defendants examined one witness in support of their case. 5. Upon appreciaon of the enre evidence on record, the Page No. 2 of 7 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.01 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2054-2025 (O&M) learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the plainff had failed to establish his possession over the suit property and consequently dismissed the suit. 6. Aggrieved against the same, the plainff preferred an appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court, affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court. 7. Assailing the above concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both the Courts below have erred in law in dismissing the suit, despite the fact that the plainff was in seCled possession of the suit property. It is argued that the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the plainff sufficiently established his possession and the Courts below have misread and mis-appreciated the evidence. It is further submiCed that even a person in seCled possession cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law and, therefore, the plainff was entled to the relief of injuncon. 8. Along with the present appeal, the appellant has also filed an applicaon bearing No. CM-7146-C-2025 under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Secon 151 CPC seeking permission to place on record a copy of a Will dated 15.01.2002 (Annexure A-1) and a general power of aCorney dated 10.08.2007 (Annexure A-2) by way of addional evidence. 9. It has been averred in the applicaon that these documents could not be produced earlier as they were not in possession of the appellant and have been procured recently. It is further contended that these documents are necessary for the just decision of the case. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit and that the addional documents sought to be produced would substanate the case of the plainff regarding his possession. Page No. 3 of 7 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.01 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2054-2025 (O&M) 11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record of the paper-book. 12. Before adverng to the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to deal with the applicaon filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. 13. A perusal of the record shows that the plainff had claimed himself to be tenant over a poron of the suit property allegedly under one Bhushan Juneja, which poron has been described as ‘CDEJKL’ in the site plan. However, there is no specific pleading as to how the said poron forms part of any idenfiable property, or as to the tle of Bhushan Juneja in respect thereof. 14. The Will dated 15.01.2002 (Annexure A-1), which is sought to be produced by way of addional evidence, is stated to have been executed by one Ram Rakhi in favour of Bhushan Juneja in respect of her movable and immovable properes. Similarly, the general power of aCorney dated 10.08.2007 (Annexure A-2) is stated to have been executed by Bhushan Juneja in favour of Sushil Kumar and Jagdish to manage his share in property bearing Nos. C-30 to C-39 situated at G.T. Road, Karnal. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to sasfactorily demonstrate as to how these documents have any direct bearing on the suit property or how they advance the case of the plainff with regard to his possession. The nexus between the documents sought to be produced and the disputed poron has not been established. 16. Apart from this, the suit was instuted by the plainff in the year 2014, whereas the documents sought to be produced are of the years 2002 and 2007. No plausible or sasfactory explanaon has been furnished as to why these documents were not produced during the course of trial despite due diligence. Mere asseron that the documents were not in possession is not sufficient to meet the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 Page No. 4 of 7 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.01 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2054-2025 (O&M) CPC. 17. It is further significant to note that there is a complete absence of pleadings in the plaint regarding the alleged Will executed by Ram Rakhi or the general power of aCorney executed by Bhushan Juneja. It is a seCled principle of law that no amount of evidence can be looked into in the absence of pleadings. Therefore, even otherwise, the documents sought to be produced cannot be permiCed to be brought on record at this stage. 18. The condions prescribed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for allowing addional evidence are not sasfied in the present case. The appellant has failed to show that the documents could not be produced despite due diligence or that the same are required by the Court to pronounce judgment. Consequently, the applicaon bearing No. CM-7146- C-2025 is dismissed. 19. Coming now to the merits of the appeal, at the outset, it is to be noced that the present appeal is governed by the provisions of Secon 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the jurisdicon of this Court is confined to examining substanal quesons of law. It is well seCled that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless the same are shown to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence or are otherwise contrary to law. 20. In the present case, the relief sought by the plainff is that of permanent injuncon. In such a suit, the primary queson for determinaon is as to whether the plainff is in possession of the suit property. The queson of tle assumes secondary importance and is not required to be adjudicated in detail unless necessary for deciding possession. 21. A perusal of the judgments passed by both the Courts below shows that the plainff has failed to produce any cogent and reliable Page No. 5 of 7 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.01 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2054-2025 (O&M) evidence to establish his possession over the suit property. Apart from his own statement, which is self-serving in nature, no documentary evidence such as rent receipts, tax records, electricity bills or any other material has been brought on record to show that the plainff was in seCled possession. The tesmony of the draNsman examined by the plainff does not advance his case with regard to possession. Similarly, the other witness examined by the plainff could not clearly establish the identy and extent of the suit property allegedly in possession of the plainff. Even the exact demarcaon of the suit property remained doubOul. 22. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding that the plainff has failed to prove his possession over the suit property and, therefore, he is not entled to the discreonary relief of injuncon. The said finding is based on proper appreciaon of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record. 23. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant that he is in seCled possession is not borne out from the evidence available on record. In the absence of proof of possession, the plainff cannot seek protecon by way of injuncon. The burden to prove possession squarely lay upon the plainff, which he has failed to discharge. 24. No material has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant to show that the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from any illegality, perversity or misreading of evidence so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdicon under Secon 100 CPC. The controversy involved is purely factual in nature and does not give rise to any substanal queson of law. 25. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for interference with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Page No. 6 of 7 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.01 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2054-2025 (O&M) 26. Resultantly, the present Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Pending applicaons, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 30, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 7 of 7 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.01 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document