R.S.A No.654 of 2002 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : December 04, 2008 1. R.S.A No.653 of 2002 2. R.S.A No.654 of 2002 Ram Gopal and another vs Smt. Norati (dead) through L.Rs & Anr *** Present : Mr.R.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Brij Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 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 order shall dispose of R.S.A Nos.653 and 654 of 2002 as they arise from counter suits. The facts are being extracted from RSA No.654 of 2002. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the two plots in dispute. Both Courts have found as a fact that though the appellants were related to the respondents (their grand fathers being brothers), the appellants denied even the relationship not only in their plaint R.S.A No.654 of 2002 ::2:: but did not admit it even in the written statement filed to the counter suit of the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the report of the Local Commissioner, which was in their favour, has not been considered at all by the trial Court while it has been wrongly discarded by the lower appellate Court. The main reasons which have weighed with the lower appellate Court in discarding the report of the Local Commissioner are, firstly, that the suit was filed on 6.4.1990 and the Local Commissioner was appointed on 12.4.1990 i.e before notice of the suit having been served upon the respondents. On 19.4.1990, the Local Commissioner sent UPC notice to the respondents for 21.4.1990 and proceeded to make his inspection without ensuring that notice was served upon the respondents. The second reason which has weighed with the lower appellate Court is that the Local Commissioner, who was assigned the duty for a limited purpose to report about the existing state of affairs, exceeded his jurisdiction and devoted several paragraphs towards establishing the title of the appellants on the site in dispute. Both the Courts have further found that in fact the property in dispute belong to the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that these findings of fact are either perverse or cannot be held to be not arising from the material on record. Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 04 , 2008. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No.654 of 2002 ::3::