AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
C.M. No. 13444 & 13446-C-2011
The applications are allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Delay, if any, in making up the deficiency of Court fee, is condoned.
RSA No. 4624 of 2011 (O & M)
Plaintiff/respondent-Jeewan Dhir (since deceased) filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from demolishing any portion of the property in question for constructing the road or park etc. as he was owner in possession of the suit land and defendant has got no right whatsoever with the same. The suit was contested by the appellant submitting that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land. Moreover, the suit land was part of T.P. Scheme No. 3-A and was earmarked and reserved for park, roads, streets, etc, which vested in the appellant. It was further pleaded that a part of park, roads and streets etc. still exists at the site and T.P. Scheme No. 3-A was duly developed and approved within the stipulated time and subsequently as per directions of this Court. It was further denied that the said scheme had lapsed and thus, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
The suit was decreed holding that there exists no T.P. Scheme 3-A, as pleaded by the appellant in its written statement. A finding has been recorded that the appellant-Municipal Council has miserably failed to place on record any evidence to prove the fact that the land in dispute is part of T.P. Scheme No. 3-A. On the other hand, finding has been recorded whereby ownership of the plaintiff-respondents has been proved on record from the revenue record.
The appeal filed by the defendant before the First Appellate Court was also dismissed, whereby, the findings of the trial Court were upheld.
Still the defendant has filed the instant appeal. There is a delay of 597 days in filing the appeal. Since this appeal is being decided on merits, the aforesaid application viz. C.M. No. 13445-C-2011 has become redundant.
Challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the evidence on record and thus, the impugned judgments and decrees are perverse and therefore, substantial question of law arises as to whether the impugned judgments and decrees are liable to be held as perverse.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below.
On appreciation of evidence, the Courts below have recorded a concurrent findings of fact that the appellant-Municipal Council has failed to produce on record any evidence recorded regarding existence of T.P. Scheme No. 3-A as pleaded in the written statement.
Even before this Court, no such evidence has been shown to support the aforesaid fact.
In view thereof, no exception can be taken to the findings of the Courts below.
No question of law, much less substantial, arises in this appeal. Dismissed.