RSA No. 2645 of 2006 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2645 of 2006 Date of decision: November 9,2010 Daya Nand ..Appellant. Versus Balwant ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering over his land and further to close the doors affixed towards his land was dismissed. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that from the material placed on record, it cannot be gathered that defendant has affixed the doors upon the land of the plaintiff-appellant as alleged and therefore the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to any relief as he has failed to prove his case. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has approached this court by way of this appeal before this Court. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned judgment and decree suffers from perversity as the material evidence adduced on record has not been considered while passing the impugned judgment and decree. So much so that report of the Local Commissioner Ex. PD which had established on record that the defendant- respondent has affixed doors wrongly has not been considered . RSA No. 2645 of 2006 2 Admittedly, the only controversy in the present case is that whether the defendant-respondent has opened doors at the appellant's property. From the evidence on record led by the appellant in support of his case, the aforesaid fact is not established. The report of the Kanungo Ex. PD, as argued by the counsel for the appellant, is also of no help to him as the same has not been proved in accordance with law. The aforesaid demarcation report was given by the revenue officers in pursuance of some orders passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, on the application of the plaintiff-appellant himself. However, the aforesaid report was not proved by producing the Local Commissioner who has demarcated the land and has submitted the aforesaid report. Therefore, I find no merit in the argument raised by the counsel for the appellant. Thus, it cannot be argued that impugned judgment and decrees suffer from perversity. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. November 9, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE