GOKUL CHAND Vs. BHANWAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has been heard on the applications moved on 14. 09. 2007 respectively under Order XXII Rule 4 & 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (IA No. 4731/2007), under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 CPC (IA No. 4732/2007); and learned counsel has also been heard at length on the competence of this second appeal in view of the facts as stated in the said applications, about demise of the defendants-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 during the pendency of the first appeal itself.

(2.) HAVING examined the impugned judgment and decree and having perused the copy of plaint and attached plan as placed for perusal by the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of submissions and having given a thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, this Court is clearly of opinion that this second appeal is required to be dismissed as incompetent.

(3.) THE learned Trial Court, after examining the oral and documentary evidence available on record, held in issue No. 1 that the plaintiffs have failed to establish if the land marked ABCD in the plan was of the same boundaries and the measurements as were stated in paragraph 3 of the plaint; and in issue No. 2 rejected the case of the plaintiffs that the land marked EFGH was used as a way; and decided issues Nos. 3 & 4 against the plaintiffs as a consequence of the findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled for any injunction against the defendants and dismissed the suit with costs by the impugned judgment and decree dated 12. 11. 1997.