IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 417 of 1986 Date of Decision: 20. 11. 2008 Baldev Parshad and another ...... Appellants Versus Ramesh Chand (deceased) through legal representatives and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 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.Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. O.P.Goyal, Advocate for the respondents. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for an injunction restraining the respondents from carrying on construction/encroachment upon the public street. Both the Courts have found as a fact that the respondent Sanatan Dharam Educational and Charitable Society had set up a temple in 10Marlas of land of erstwhile Khasra No. 505 prior to the Notification of the Hassanopur Municipal Council in the year 1973. Both the Courts have further found as a fact that even on date the land in possession of the said RSA No. 417 of 1986 -2- Sabha was 10 Marlas and thus have rejected the plea of the appellants regarding construction/encroachment having been made. For coming to this conclusion the Courts below have relied upon the report of the office Kanungo who was appointed as local commissioner. Both the Courts have also found that even though a plan of the area was prepared by the Town and Country Planning Department after the notification of the Municipal Council for Hassanpur yet in that plan no dimensions were given about the public place/thoroughfare in dispute. The plaintiff-appellant has not placed on record any other document evidencing the dimensions of the public thoroughfare except for a plan which has admittedly been prepared by appellant No.1. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that these findings of fact are either perverse o can be held not to be arising from the record of the Courts below. Consequently I hold that no question of law arises in this appeal and dismiss the same. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 20, 2008 sunita