R.S.A No. 925 of 2009 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 925 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : January 12, 2010 Singara Ram, ...... Appellant (s) v. Bhupinder Kaur and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for pre- emption of sale executed by the owners in favour of the respondents vide sale deed dated 10.7.1995. Both the Courts below have dis-believed the version of the appellant that he was a tenant over the land in dispute. The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Once a suit is withdrawn may be at the appellate stage, whether the finding recorded by the trial Court in R.S.A No. 925 of 2009 (O&M) ::2:: that suit can be taken into consideration to be a finding against the appellant or the finding stands set aside ? ii) Whether the judgments and decrees of the courts below are legally sustainable in law being based on misreading and misconstruing the evidence on record ? iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is illegally sustainable ?” As regards question No. (i), both the Courts have noticed the fact that on two occasions, the appellant had filed suits for injunction, which were dismissed as withdrawn. Apart from this, both the Courts have also relied upon the fact that Khasra Girdawaris in favour of the appellant were changed by Exs. D10 and D11. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the finding of the Courts below that the appellant was not a tenant over the land in dispute is either based on no evidence or is based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Questions No. (ii) and (iii) are based on question No. (i). Since question No. (i) is answered against the appellant, questions No. (ii) and (iii) are also answered against the appellant. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 12, 2010. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 925 of 2009 (O&M) ::3::