RAM KISHAN Vs. BISHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal which has been filed in the year 2013 is brought for hearing after several rounds of adjournment sought at the instance of the appellant. Now, there is no presence of the counsel but there is a written request for adjournment. I decline to grant an adjournment noting the fact that the appellant has been a persistent defaulter and was only interesting having the case adjourned from time to time.

(2.) The matter relating to examination of whether there is substantial question of law for consideration is essentially a duty of the Court and I, therefore, proceed to examine the case and dispose of the appeal on merits.

(3.) The appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff who filed the suit for permanent injunction that the property is classified as shamlat deh where rain water and sludge water collected and the defendants were trying to enter upon the property and put up construction. The contention was that the plaintiff was also amongst the proprietors of the village and the defendants could not have any construction made which was against the interest of the plaintiff. The trial Court found that the property was shamlat deh and the defendants were contending the property to be their own. The issue of whether the property was village common land or not would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act and the suit was not competent. The Court also found that the plaintiff had not established any particular prejudice to him and the relief of injunction could not, therefore, be granted, more so, in the absence of the village panchayat being made party in suit.