RSA No. 1383 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1383 of 2008 Date of Decision: 7.9.2009 Ranjit ......Appellant Versus Kura Ram and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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? Present: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Advocate, for Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below, whereby his suit for permanent injunction was dismissed. It has been found by the learned first Appellate Court that the Gram Panchayat is recorded to be in possession till Kharif 1995. However, from Rabi 1996, the plaintiff is recorded in possession of the suit property, but there is no explanation either in the pleadings or in evidence as to how the revenue entries were changed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff- appellant has admitted that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the suit property. Once the Gram Panchayat is owner of the suit property, the suit for injunction before the Civil Court without impleading Panchayat cannot be said to be maintainable. RSA No. 1383 of 2008 (2) Keeping in view the fact that the change in entries in the revenue record, is not supported by any reason and that the property in dispute is admittedly is that of Gram Panchayat, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 07-09-2009 ds