-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 232 of 1988. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 15, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 232 of 1988. Devi Dayal (since deceased) through his legal representatives ... Appellant VERSUS Mihan and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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 ? Present: Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration that the order dated 26.2.1979 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade exercising -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 232 of 1988. the powers of Collector, Ambala passed in the application of the defendants-respondents for redemption with respect to the land in dispute was wrong, illegal and unjust was dismissed. The only dispute before the Courts below was in respect of Rs.1,000/-. The plaintiff-appellant claimed that land in dispute could be ordered to be redeemed on payment of Rs.3200/- whereas the revenue authority passed order of redemption in respect of the land in dispute on payment of Rs.2200/- by the defendants to the plaintiff. The land in dispute was under mortgage with the plaintiff-appellant since 26.6.1982 in the sum of Rs.2200/-. The plaintiff-appellant claimed that additional mortgage deed dated 5.3.1985 with regard to the same land on further payment of Rs.1,000/- was executed in favour of the plaintiff. However, both the Courts below have found it as a fact that there is no satisfactory evidence on record that additional mortgage deed dated 5.3.1985 for Rs.1,000/- had been executed in favour of the plaintiff. None of the attesting witnesses of the additional mortgage had been examined by the plaintiff-appellant to support his case. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, could not persuade me by referring to any material on record, to take a different view than the one taken by both the Courts below. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 232 of 1988. appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 15, 2011. JUDGE ak