SIRI RAM SON OF SHRI PRABH DYAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANOL, PARGANA TIUN, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTT. BILASPUR, H.P. Vs. SHRI RANJEET SON OF SHRI DANDU AND ORS. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE PANOL, PARGANA TIUN, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner (plaintiff) had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/ - as damages against the respondents (defendants) on account of the defendants having cut a mango tree belonging to the plaintiff standing on land bearing khata/khatauni No. 69/101 min, khasra No. 203, measuring 18.19 bigha, situate in village Panol, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. The suit was contested by the defendants and was ultimately dismissed after trial vide judgment and decree dated 06.06.2009. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal to the court of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, who also dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 01.09.2010. The plaintiff further carried the matter, by way of a regular second appeal, to this Court. However, since a second appeal where the value of the subject matter does not exceed 25,000/ - rupees is barred under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC'), the appeal has been treated as a revision petition vide order dated 06.01.2012. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments of the learned courts below.

(2.) THE suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial court mainly on the ground of limitation. Admittedly, the mango tree was allegedly cut and removed by the defendants about seven years before filing of the suit on 07.04.2000. Thus, even as per own pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff, the suit on the face of it was barred by time and was rightly dismissed by the learned trial court, which finding has been upheld by the learned First Appellate Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground is madeout for any interference with the impugned judgments and decrees under Section 115 CPC, as none of the grounds (a) to (c) stipulated thereunder is madeout. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed so also pending CMP (s), if any.