IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3847 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 28 , 2009 Gram Panchayat of village Singhpura Kurali ...... Appellant Versus Kesar Singh and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the respondents. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial court and thereby refusing injunction to the appellant for restraining the respondents from interfering in its possession over the property in dispute. What weighed with the learned lower Appellate Court was the fact that the description of the property in dispute by the appellant was so vague and unclear as to render the same unidentifiable. After having gone through the entire record of the case I have not been able to persuade myself that this finding of fact is either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the learned first appellate court could have given a finding when the point was not raised in the grounds of appeal nor there was any such issue regarding the description of the suit property? ii)Whether the plaintiff/appellant who is admittedly owner of the land in dispute could have been denied the injunction against the respondents? iii)Whether the learned first appellate court could have given the finding on the basis of conjecture and surmises? In my opinion once the findings of the learned lower Appellate Court regarding non-identification of the property in dispute are upheld, the questions proposed do not arise in the present appeal. Consequently this appeal and the application for stay as well are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 28, 2009 sunita