RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFFS -appellants are in appeal against the judgment of reversal dated 3.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, whereby the judgment and decree dated 9.4.2013 of the learned trial court decreeing the suit for permanent injunction was set aside, allowing the appeal of the defendant -respondent. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs -appellants filed suit for permanent injunction or in the alternative for joint possession on the allegations that plaintiffs were joint mortgagees in joint possession of the suit land measuring 15 kanals 16 marlas. Defendant had no concern with the suit property. Since the defendant was extending threats to dispossess the plaintiffs, they had no other option, except to file present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing them. Having been served in the suit, defendant appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit was barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulations, Act 1961 ('VCL Act' for short). It was further averred that suit land was of the ownership of the Gram Panchayat under Section 2 (g) of the VCL Act and the civil court was not having jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. Plaintiffs did not approach the Court with clean hands, nor they were having any cause of action. The suit was bad for non -joinder of the necessary party, i.e. Gram Panchayat. On merits, it was alleged that plaintiffs were not having any mortgage deed. The court precluded the plaintiffs to claim any right under the mortgage deed vide order dated 15.7.2009. Entries in the revenue record do not confer any title on the plaintiffs, because truth attached thereto was always rebuttable. The plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land. Denying all other averments taken in the plaint, defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(2.) ON completion of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues: - "1. Whether the plaintiffs are joint mortgagees in joint possession of the land in dispute and are entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act?OPD 3. Whether plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and are not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction? OPD 4. Whether no cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff for filing the present suit? OPD 5. Whether present suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Relief" With a view to substantiate their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence available on record, the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs with costs restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land, vide judgment and decree dated 10.4.2013. Defendant filed his first appeal, which was accepted by the learned lower appellate court. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Thus, feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree dated 3.10.2013, plaintiffs have filed instant regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that plaintiffs - appellants were in settled possession over the suit land. They were very much entitled to protect their possession even against the true owner and could have been dispossessed in due course of law. He next contended that since the learned lower appellate court proceeded on an erroneous approach while passing the impugned judgment and decree, the same were not sustainable in law. He prays for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree by allowing the present appeal.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the case, present one is not a fit case for exercising its appellate jurisdiction by this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because no substantial question of law has been found to be involved for consideration of this Court. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.;