RSA No.1875 of 2009(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1875 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision:10.05.2010 Laxmi .... appellant Versus Ambu @ Ambi & ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Dr.Parveen Hans,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgement and decrees of the courts below whereby her suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondents from collecting the offerings by acting as enunch and from making interference in her functioning as enunch in any manner, was dismissed. The case of the appellant is that she was an enunch and was making her livelihood by collecting offerings. Defendants were having their families and had no concern whatsoever with the enunch community. Defendants were bent upon collecting the offerings from the area of the plaintiff without any right or authority and therefore they were liable to be restrained from doing so. Defendants/respondents resisted the suit submitting that the appellant was neither an enunch nor was dependent on the collection of offerings. Appellant was a lady and was residing with her husband and RSA No.1875 of 2009(O & M) 2 sons. The appellant had no concern whatsoever with enunch community and was not entitled to any relief. On appreciation of evidence both the courts below recorded a finding of fact that plaintiff was not an enunch as she had not produced any evidence to prove that she was an enunch. Appellant, even failed to get herself examined from the Medical Board in the Government Hospital despite an order by the court in this regard and adverse inference was drawn against her and thus appellant was not held entitled to the relief claimed by the courts below. Not satisfied, the appellant has approached this Court by way of instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. A finding of fact has been recorded by both the courts below that appellant is not an enunch. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to find fault with aforesaid findings. Thus, he has no locus standi to file this case restraining the defendants from collecting the offerings. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 13.05.2010 neenu