R.S.A No. 531 of 2007(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 531 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision : November 20, 2009 Dariya and others, ...... Appellant (s) v. Bhagat Ram, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.S.Godara, Advocate for the respondent. *** 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) On January 18, 2008 notice of motion was issued with the following order :- “ Learned counsel for defendants-appellants submits that the defendants-appellants are ready to pay an amount for the land which is recorded to have been encroached upon. However, since the construction has already been raised, the same be not demolished. Notice of motion for 19.02.2008. R.S.A No. 531 of 2007(O&M) ::2:: Notice be given dasti as well.” Despite a lapse of almost two years, no compromise has been worked out. The present appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below granting to the respondent a perpetual injunction restraining the appellants from interfering in his possession over the property in dispute and also a mandatory injunction directing the appellants to hand over vacant possession of land measuring 8`x5.1/2' which has been encroached by them. Both Courts have concurrently found on fact that there was encroachment. The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the evidence can be led on issues which are self contradictory ? ii) Whether evidence which has been led beyond the pleadings can be read against the appellant ? iii) Whether the report of the Local Commissioner, Ex.P-1 which is in violation of Punjab Land Revenue Act and High Court Rules and Orders can be read into evidence ?” It would be seen that questions No. (ii) and (iii) are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. As regards question No. (i), no contradiction has been pointed out in the issue. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the R.S.A No. 531 of 2007(O&M) ::3:: appellants, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 20, 2009. JUDGE `kk'