RSA No. 1523 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1523 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: January 14 , 2010 Har Parshad and others ...... Appellants Versus Hari Chand ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.G.S.Malik, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the respondent. **** 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 allowing the appeal of the respondent and thereby decreeing his suit that one part of the disputed property is the common Gali while the other part of the disputed property is his ownership. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the judgment and decree of lower Appellant Court is result of misreading and mis-appreciation of law and evidence? ii)Whether the findings recorded by learned Lower Appellate Court is contrary to record as the appellants have specifically pleaded that the site plan of plaintiff is wrong? RSA No. 1523 of 2009(O&M) 2 iii)Whether the Lower Appellate Court being final court of fact ought to have dealt with each and every aspect/pleadings of the appellants while setting aside the well reasoned judgment and decree of trial court? iv)Whether the judgment and decree of Lower Appellate Court is erroneous, perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law? v) Whether the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and in this case, the plaintiff has failed to even notify his property? vi)Whether the site plan Ex.P1 produced by plaintiff can be taken into consideration especially when PW2 has deposed that he prepared the same in court complex at the instance of plaintiff? vii)Whether the report of Local Commissioner which is ex parte can be taken into consideration? Each of the questions proposed is a pure question of fact. Learned counsel had taken me extensively through the evidence including the site plan and has shown me some photographs one of which was not filed during evidence. On a conspectus of the entire evidence learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 14 , 2010 sunita