SECOND APPEAL 955 of 2009 on 29 February 1992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH

Regular Second Appeal No. 955 of 2009Date of decision: December 10, 2009

Piara Lal Mehndiratta

Versus

…..APPELLANT

Om Parkash

…..RESPONDENT

CORAM:HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN

Present:Mr D.K.Bhatti, AdvocateT.P.S.MANN, J.

Suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for recovery ofRs. 4 lakh alongwith interest and costs, was dismissed by CivilJudge (Junior Division), Jalandhar on 21.9.2006. Even the firstappeal filed by him was dismissed by Additional District Judge,Jalandhar on 6.11.2008. He is now before this Court by way ofsecond appeal.

The plaintiff claimed to be a respectable person and retired as Inspector from Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. Hehad a dispute with the defendant regarding stair case of propertyNo.EE-328, Mohalla Panj Peer, Jalandhar. The defendant hadbeen harassing him and causing mental, financial and physicalharm by filing various cases against him since 1980 and losingall of them. Despite the same, he had been filing the appeals

and revisions, but remained unsuccessful in all of them. Once ofthe suit was withdrawn by him after five years of its filing. Theplaintiff had engaged lawyers, paid fee to them, filed writtenstatements and replies, besides adducing evidence. In theprocess, he had been made to spend huge amount. All the caseshad been filed by the defendant intentionally, maliciously andmalafidely, knowing the same to be false. Though he wasentitled to much more amount, yet due to the fact that he wasunable to pay the heavy Court fee, the plaintiff confined hisclaim to Rs.4 lakh for being awarded to him as damages againstthe defendant.

While opposing the present suit, the defendantcontended that there was a dispute regarding the stair casebetween the parties. It was part of House No.EE-328/1 and theonly passage for egress and ingress, whereas the plaintiff hadseparate and independent passage to his house. The plaintiffforcibly constructed room over the roof and Deori belonging tothe defendant and then claimed the stair case to be common.There was no opening of the wall on the Eastern side of the staircase. It was denied that the suits were filed to harass the plaintiffor with malafide motive or malice, as every person was free tofight for his right in the property, claimed to be his ownershipand nothing was illegal in it. It was a different thing that the

defendant failed in his various suits but the litigation could notbe termed as malicious. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitledto the damages as claimed.

In one of the suit bearing No.76/92 filed by thedefendant against the plaintiff for partition of his share in thestair case or auction thereof, the applications moved by both theparties for purchase of other's share were dismissed. Thedefendant then filed Civil Revision No.1686 of 1997 in thisCourt, wherein a compromise was arrived at, whereunder thedefendant was to deposit Rs. 1 lakh, followed by the plaintiffexecuting the sale deed in respect of the stair case in favour ofthe defendant. The said amount of Rs. 1 lakh was deposited bythe defendant and consequently, the sale deed was executed bythe plaintiff. It, thus, shows that there was a genuine disputebetween the parties relating to the stair case. As the plaintiffafter receiving the amount of Rs.1 lakh executed the sale deed infavour of the defendant, he cannot now turn around to claim anydamages on account of the various litigations initiated by thedefendant against him. Moreover, while deciding various suits,concerned Courts had not imposed any costs or fine upon thedefendant.

It may also be not out of place to mention here thatthe first five suits stood decided up to 29.2.1992 and any such

Conclusion

claim for damages in respect of their filing could have beeninstituted within a period of three years from 29.2.1992. Thoughthe 6[th] suit was decided only a couple of months before the filingof the present suit, yet it stood settled by way of compromise.As such, no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on accountof the decision of the 6[th] suit. Therefore, the filing of the presentsuit on 11.11.1999 was beyond the period of three years of thedecision of the first five suits and, thus, barred by limitation.

The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by thelearned Courts below were based upon correct appreciation ofthe material evidence available on the record. These findingscannot be described as either perverse or suffering from anyillegality or infirmity. Therefore, they cannot be reversed andthat too, in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on somesubstantial question of law and not otherwise. None of thesubstantial questions of law, as framed by the appellant, arisesfor determination.

Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and thesame is dismissed.

December 10, 2009.Pds.

(T.P.S.MANN) JUDGE