IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 524 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.2.2010 Baldev Singh. ....... Appellant. Versus Sardara and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri R.M.Singh, 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.1482-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. R.S.A.No.524 of 2010 & C.M.Nos.1483-84-C of 2010 This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 8.5.2009 and 18.9.2009 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Ambala (referred to hereinafter as `the first appellate Court'). Since it has been filed beyond limitation, C.M.No.1484-C of 2010 has been moved for condonation of 34 days' delay R.S.A.No.524 of 2010 (O&M) -2- .... in its filing, whereas C.M.No.1483-C of 2010 has been preferred for staying the operation of the impugned judgments and decrees in the meanwhile. The appellant along with proforma respondents had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering in their ingress and egress through passage situated in khasra no.36, killa no.21, measuring 9 marlas as marked by the words CDEF in the site plan attached with the plaint. The averments made in the suit were denied and it was pleaded by the respondents that the appellant & proforma respondents had no concern with the passage in question. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court determined that the appellant & proforma respondents had no concern with the passage in question and that they had a separate passage abutting their land, which led to the main road. Besides, the first appellant Court found as a matter of fact that at the time of filing of the suit and as per the site plan, Exhibit P2, the respondents had dug a ditch at mark `MN' which was 1-1/2' wide, 10' long and 2' deep, implying thereby that when the suit was filed, the passage was not available to the appellant and proforma respondents for their use. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the findings of the Courts below are perverse and are liable to be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that a pure question of fact has been determined by the Courts below regarding the existence of the passage. R.S.A.No.524 of 2010 (O&M) -3- .... The counsel for the appellant has not been able to show as to whether there has been misreading of any evidence. In such an eventuality, when pure question of fact has been determined and no question of law arises for determination by this Court, the appeal does not deserve to succeed. Besides, the appeal has been filed after a delay of 34 days and the reasons given in the application are not inspiring enough so as to warrant condonation thereof. Looking at it from any angle, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. C.M.Nos.1483-C and 1484-C of 2010 are also dismissed in view of the above. February 5 ,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge