Viney Mittal,J. - (1.) (Oral)
(2.) DELAY in filing the appeal is condoned. The defendants, State of Haryana and others are in appeal. They have lost before the learned first appellate court. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffs. It was claimed that they were in cultivating possession of the suit land and the defendants could not have dispossessed them. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned trial court. Although it was held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land but they were found in unauthorised possession and,therefore it was held that no injunction could be issued in their favour. On an appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the learned first appellate Court re-examined the controversy and held that the plaintiffs were in settled possession of the suit land. Consequently, the appeal of the plaintiffs was allowed and it was held that the plaintiffs could not be dispossessed from the suit land except in due course of law. Since a liberty has been granted to the defendants to seek possession in accordance with law, there is no justification to interfere in the present appeal. R.S.A. No. 2688 of 2004 (O&M) Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.;