Panchkula, July 10 -- A local court has dismissed an appeal filed by Army Captain Harshita Dahiya and Suman Dahiya in a civil dispute over the cost of a common boundary wall with former Haryana director general of police (DGP) Kanwar Nirmal Singh. District judge, in an order passed on July 8, upheld the October 2025 judgment of the additional civil judge (senior division), Kalka, which directed the appellants to pay Rs.84,000 plus interest to the retired DGP towards their share of the common wall's construction cost. The appeal, filed in November 2025, challenged the trial court's decree and also arrayed the district town planner, the department of town and country planning, and M/s Amarnath Aggarwal Investments Pvt. Ltd. as respondents. According to the case, the retired DGP (plaintiff in the earlier suit) filed a civil suit in 2022 claiming ownership of a house in Amravati Enclave, Panchkula, allotted in 2004, where he had constructed the building up to the second floor. He said he also built the common wall adjoining the neighbouring plot at a cost of Rs.1.68 lakh. He argued that under applicable building rules, a neighbour who constructs later must share the cost of the common wall. Even if the neighbour does not use it as a load-bearing wall, they are still liable to bear the proportionate cost of a six-foot enclosure wall. Since the neighbouring plot was re-allotted to the appellants (defendants in the earlier suit) in 2019 and they later constructed their house, they were liable to pay Rs.84,000, he claimed. The retired DGP further said that despite repeated requests and a complaint to the district town planner seeking payment directions, the amount remained unpaid. The appellants, however, denied the claim, asserting that they had constructed their own six-foot boundary wall at their own expense and had not used the respondent's wall for load bearing. They contended that they had already paid Rs.90,000 to the retired DGP in July 2019 towards the common wall and had also supplied construction material during the renovation of his house. According to them, the retired DGP actually owed them Rs.2.10 lakh for the construction material and had filed the recovery suit to avoid paying them. While dismissing the appeal, the district judge observed that although the appellants claimed to have paid Rs.90,000, they failed to produce any documentary proof, receipt, or even specify the exact date of payment. The court held that the appellants could not substantiate their defence and found no error in the trial court's findings. Court ruled that the appellants failed to prove that a sum of Rs.90,000 was in fact paid to the respondent DGP. No receipt or specific date of payment was produced. Therefore, the trial court rightly decreed the suit," the court observed while dismissing the appeal with costs....