HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION under Section 149 read with Section 151 of the CPC to condone the deficiency in Court fees which has not been made good is allowed in view of the averments made in the application which are duly supported by an affidavit. CM No.l4231 -C of 2011 Application under Section 151 of CPC for condonation of delay of 205 days in refiling the appeal is allowed in view of the averments made in the application which are duly supported by an affidavit. RSA No.4883 of 2011 This judgment shall dispose of two regular second appeals bearing RSA No.4883 of 2011 and RSA No.4885 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff against the common judgment and decree of the District Court, Rupnagar whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff seeking enhanced compensation has been dismissed and the appeal filed by the defendants has been allowed and the damages of Rs.4000/ - granted by the trial Court have been set aside. The facts are taken from RSA No.4883 of 2011.

(2.) THE suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/ - as damages for harassment and injury of reputation due to the illegal acts of the defendants was filed by the plaintiff -appellant on the ground that he was owner of property situated khewat/khatauni No. 190/230 khasra No.27// 11(8 -0), 12(8 -0), 10/2(4 - 12), 28//15(2 -0) total land measuring 22 kanals 12 marlas situated in Village Beli Tehsil and District Ropar. It is contended that the defendants were inimical towards the plaintiff and had given an application before the SSP Ropar with the allegations that the plaintiff had encroached upon the shamlat deh and due to the fact that the defendants had good relations with the police, the plaintiff was called for three consecutive days from 04.05.2005 to 07.05.2005 at Police Station Bhratgarh and were forced to sit in the police station from morning till night and again, on 16.05.2005, he was called by the police of Police Station Sadar, Ropar. Police had made enquiries on the application given by the defendants and a report was sent to the office of SSP, Ropar but no action was taken against the plaintiff. It was contended that the plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the property described above where he had planted 400 popular trees in 2 acres of land which were 6/7 years of age and contracted to sell them at Rs.3,00,000/ - but due to the application moved by the defendants, the sale of those trees was delayed and the plaintiff had to sell the same at the cost of Rs.2,00,000/ - to another contractor and thus suffered a loss of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The calling of me plaintiff to the police was injurious in the eyes of general public and thus, the claim for damages.

(3.) THE plaintiff produced 4 witnesses whereas the defendants examined 2 witnesses including himself and Inderjit Singh, Halka Patwari.