SHRI SAUNU RAM, SON OF SHRI GURDITTU, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 109, DIARA SECTOR, BILASPUR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P. Vs. THAKUR DASS, SON OF UNKNOWN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M.P. (M) No. 661 of 2008 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. As per the Registry, the delay in filing the appeal is of 7 days. The application is supported by an affidavit. Reply has been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 which is also supported by an affidavit. No reply has been filed by proforma respondent No. 3. I have gone through the application and the reply and for the reasons stated in the application, I am satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal has been properly explained. Accordingly application allowed, delay condoned. The appellant has projected the case that he is in possession of new Khasra No. 1798/1773, situate in Diara Sector, Bilaspur. The suit has been filed for permanent prohibitory injunction. The respondents No. 1 and 2 contested the suit and have taken the plea that State of Himachal Pradesh is owner of the suit land. The proforma respondent No. 3 has also contested the suit and took preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, lack of notice under Section 80 CPC and locus standi of the appellant to file the suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 07.06.2006 by returning the finding that the appellant is not entitled to injunction. The lower Appellate Court on 28.03.2008 affirmed the judgment, decree dated 07.06.2006 of the trial Court. The appellant has filed the suit that he is in possession of the land since the year 1962. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that no plea of adverse possession was taken. The State is owner of the land in dispute. The appellant even as per his case is an encroacher. There cannot be any injunction in favour of an encroacher. No question of law much less any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed, so also the pending applications.