PREM SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs instituted civil suit bearing No. 227- 1 of 1999, before the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Theog, District Shimla, H.P. In the afore civil suit, the plaintiffs claimed, the, making a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, against the defendants, and, qua the suit khasra Nos, comprised in khata/khatoni No. 54/82, khasra Nos 927/94, 99, 586, 704, 707 and 708, kitas 6, measuring 50-9 bighas. The learned trial Judge, through his decision made on 28.7.2003, upon the afore civil suit, granted the espoused decree to the plaintiffs. The defendant, one Prem Singh, became aggrieved from the judgment and decree, made by the learned trial Judge, upon, the afore civil suit, and hence preferred an appeal thereagainst, before the learned District Judge, Shimla. The afore Civil Appeal, bearing No. 48-S/13 of 2006/04, became decided on 3.5.2007. Through the afore made verdict, the learned first Appellate Court, dismissed the defendants' appeal, and, obviously upheld the judgment and decree (supra), as became pronounced by the learned trial Judge, upon Civil Suit No. 227-1 of 1999.

(2.) The defendant, one Prem Singh became aggrieved from the afore made concurrent judgment(s) and decree(s), as became respectively, pronounced by the learned trial Judge concerned, and, by the learned First Appellate Court concerned. Consequently, he instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, bearing No. 353 of 2007, before this Court, and, therethrough, he strived for annulment(s) of the judgment(s) and decree(s), as became concurrently rendered against him, by both the learned Courts below. When the appeal, came up for admission before this Court, on 21.7.2008, this Court admitted, the instant appeal, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:

(3.) Since the extant Regular Second Appeal, has been admitted on the afore formulated substantial question of law. Therefore, this Court would not delve into the entire gamut of the lis, rather this Court confines itself, only in meteing an answer, to the afore formulated substantial question of law.