MEHAR DEEN Vs. CHANDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff is aggrieved against the findings recorded by the two courts below as the trial court decreed the counter claim filed by the defendants after dismissing the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 8.7.1996 against which the appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 10.5.2005. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the courts below committed serious error of law in decreeing the counter claim of the defendants and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

(3.) It will be worthwhile to mention here that the plaintiff's evidence was closed and the defendants could not get an opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff. The defendants' evidence also remained unrebutted. Two courts below, after appreciation of the evidence, held that the plaintiff encroached upon the land of way as well as land of public chowk. The finding of fact is not vitiated by any reason and the appellant has not even placed on record the order by which the evidence of the plaintiff was closed.