KARAM CHAND Vs. SHIV DYAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the judgment dated 7.8.2008 delivered by the learned District Judge, Chamba in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 6 of 2008 whereby he rejected the appeal filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) and upheld the order of the learned trial Court dated 29.12.2007 whereby the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2A was dismissed.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) filed a suit praying that Defendant be restrained from interfering in the possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land. It is not disputed that both the parties made a statement before the learned trial Court that they would maintain status qua over the suit land. Therefore, such order was binding both on the Plaintiff as well as on the Defendant.

(3.) THE Defendant filed an application before the learned trial Court complaining that despite the order dated 10.07.2000 directing the parties to maintain status quo the Plaintiff had started construction work and had raised construction on 10.2.2003, 12.2.2003, 15.2.2003, 19.2.2003 and 21.2.2003. Therefore, it was prayed that action be taken against the Plaintiff in terms of Order 39 Rule 2A. The Plaintiff contested this application by filing reply and averred that he had not raised any construction on the suit land. The parties led evidence and both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the Defendant has failed to prove that the construction was raised by the Plaintiff over the suit land. Both the Courts below have clearly held that the Defendant had failed to identify the Khasra numbers on which the Plaintiff had raised construction and had also failed to get the land demarcated to prove that the construction had been raised on the property which was subject matter of the suit. This is the pure finding of fact delivered by both the Courts below which cannot be interfered with in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected.