RSA No.280 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.280 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.3.2009 Balkar Singh ..Appellant Vs. Nishan Singh & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.R.K.Girdhar, Advocate, for the appellant. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.2.2007 passed by the learned lower appellant court vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for injunction restraining the defendants from blocking the passage has been ordered to be decreed. Suit was brought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the use of passage which was said to be in existence. RSA No.280 of 2008 2 The parties are real paternal uncle and nephews, whose lands stand partitioned. In order to prove the existence of passage, plaintiff/respondent placed on record photographs which were duly exhibited as Ex.P.1 and P.2. Learned trial court non-suited the plaintiff/respondent on the plea that negatives were not retained in court while photographs were got exhibited by the Photographer, therefore, these could not be read in evidence. The learned trial court held that as there was no admissible evidence to show the existence of passage, thus, plaintiff was not entitled to decree of injunction. In appeal, the finding recorded by the learned trial court has been set aside by reversing the finding of the learned trial court in view of the fact that Photographer was produced to prove the photographs Ex.P.1 and P.2, which were duly exhibited without objection to their admissibility. Once the photographs were exhibited, they were to be read in evidence as the photographer while appearing in witness box was in possession of negatives. Other ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the suit was not properly verified thus liable to be dismissed is also not sustainable in law. The learned court rightly held that the plaint was properly verified in consonance with law. Learned lower appellate court on appreciation of evidence on record has recorded a finding of fact that there is a path in existence which the defendants are not entitled to block and the plaintiff/respondent is RSA No.280 of 2008 3 entitled to use the same. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration of this court:- Whether the judgment of reversal passed by the learned lower appellate court is liable to be set aside being outcome of reading of inadmissible evidence, thus, perverse? In support of the substantial question of law, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned lower appellate court wrongly took into consideration the Photographs Ex.P.1 and P.2 which were rightly rejected by the learned trial court for want of negatives. There is no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The photographer was examined, who proved the photographs without any objection from the defendant-appellant as observed above. Once the documents were exhibited without any objection, learned trial court was wrong in rejecting the documentary evidence. The finding recorded by the learned trial court has been rightly reversed by the learned lower appellate court on appreciation of evidence on record. The substantial question of law raised does not arise for consideration in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed. 19.03.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge