IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1153 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.11.2008 Balan .... Appellant versus Daya Nand .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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.(ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant challenging the sale deed dated 15.3.1996 on the ground that the appellant had never executed the sale deed and that it had been obtained by impersonation and fraud. It is noteworthy that the appellant did not get examine any document expert to show that the thumb impressions were not his. Apart from this, the appellant and his four sons (two of whom appeared in rebuttal) had admitted possession of the respondent over the land in dispute, to the extent that one of his son admitted that the respondent had been in possession of the land in dispute since the date of the sale deed. An application was filed before the learned Lower Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 for permission to have the disputed thumb impressions compared but the same was also declined by the learned Lower RSA No.1153 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Appellate Court by an order dated 14.09.2007 – not invalidly, in my opinion – holding that even without that evidence it is possible to decide the case. In this view of the matter, I hold that the proposed questions of law do not arise in this appeal and dismiss the same. No costs. November 25, 2008 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE