JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - This order shall dispose of seven appeals bearing RSA No.2578 of 1985 titled as Phool Singh Vs. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator, RSA No. 2573 of 1985 titled as Sumer Singh Vs. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator, RSA No. 2574 of 1985 titled as Shiv Lal Vs. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator, RSA No. 2575 of 1985 titled as Lachhu Vs. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator, RSA No. 2576 of 1985 titled as Smt. Om Wati and others Vs. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator, RSA No. 2577 of 1985 titled as Rajesh Vs. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator, and RSA No. 2579 of 1985 titled as Ram Singh Vs. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator as the question involved in all these appeals is the same. However, the facts are extracted from RSA No.2578 of 1985 titled as Phool Singh Vs. The Faridabad Complex Administration (Ballabhgarh Zone) through its Chief Administrator. 2. The present appeals are filed at the instance of the plaintiffs arising out of a suit for permanent injunction in which the plaintiffs had alleged that they are in possession of a shop and verandah situated in village Pathwari Mandir Road, Ballabhgarh, which was constructed more than one year ago and notice bearing No.11410 dated 30.9.1982 purported to have been issued under Section 208 of the Haryana Municipal Act,1973 is illegal as the said notice could have been issued only within six months of the completion of construction. It is alleged that since the notice has been received after the expiry of one year of the construction of the shop, it has lost it's importance and could not have been issued for interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought a decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from demolishing the property in their possession. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants who had also amended the written statement but the sum and substance of the reply is that the notice has been issued within six months of the construction of the shop. 4. The plaintiff filed replication and on the pleadings of the parties, the following two issues were framed: 1. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants who had also amended the written statement but the sum and substance of the reply is that the notice has been issued within six months of the construction of the shop. 4. The plaintiff filed replication and on the pleadings of the parties, the following two issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction as claimed ? OPP 2. Relief: 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, which led to the filing of a statutory appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'), which too met with the same fate vide judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (I), Faridabad dated 05.6.1985. 6. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Sr. Counsel, appearing for the appellants has argued that out of the seven appeals, in three appeals i.e. RSA No. 2578 of 1985, RSA No. 2575 of 1985 and RSA No. 2579 of 1985, the only issue is 'whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction as claimed'? but in other four appeals the issue was qua ownership as well. Learned counsel has argued that though the Courts below have not decided the issue with regard to the ownership in the present lis between the parties but the appellants in these appeals have already filed civil suits for declaration that they are owners of the suit property, which are pending. It is also submitted that the finding of these appeals may not come in the way of the said civil suits which are filed for seeking declaration with regard to title. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants in this regard as well. 8. To my mind, no observation is required to be made by this Court in this regard as no finding has been recorded by the Courts below with regard to ownership. 9. The learned Courts below have only recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs have failed to prove on record by leading cogent evidence that they had already constructed the property in dispute and the notice was received after a period of one year thereafter. 10. 9. The learned Courts below have only recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs have failed to prove on record by leading cogent evidence that they had already constructed the property in dispute and the notice was received after a period of one year thereafter. 10. Since there is no question of law much less substantial in these cases as envisaged under Section 100 of CPC, therefore, I do not find any error in the judgment and decree of both the Courts below in dismissing the suits of the plaintiffs. Hence, all these appeals are found to be without any merit and the same are hereby dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.