- (1.) C.M. No. 8297-C of 2011 : 1. Although strictly speaking, averments made in the application do not make out sufficient ground for condoning the long delay of 104 days in re-filing the appeal, yet adopting liberal approach, the said delay is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly. Main Appeal : Plaintiffs no. 2 to 4, along with some of the legal representatives of plaintiffs no. 1 and 5, have filed this second appeal, having lost in both the courts below. Plaintiffs alleged that they are owners in possession of the suit property, as was found by Local Commissioner appointed in earlier suit titled Sheolal v. Richh Pal etc. Defendants, without any right, title or interest in the suit property, threatened to take forcible possession thereof. Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from doing so.
(2.) Defendants broadly denied the plaint averments. It was denied that plaintiffs are owners or in possession of the suit property. It was pleaded that plaintiffs have no right, title or interest therein. It was also alleged that the suit land is shamlat deh and is meant for common religious purposes. Door of Nohara of defendants also opens in the suit property. The plaintiffs want to grab the suit property.
(3.) Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 16.03.2006, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit First appeal preferred by plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2010. Vide separate order of even date, lower appellate court also dismissed application moved by plaintiffs/appellants for permission to withdraw the suit, with liberty to file fresh suit on the ground that wrong boundaries were shown in the site plan, effecting the suit. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal.;