RSA No. 622 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 622 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 10 , 2009 Chhitar and others ...... Appellants Versus Smt.Manbhawati and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing a suit under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. filed by the respondents claiming permanent and mandatory injunction against the appellants to the effect that the appellants had encroached upon certain land owned by Khatikan-Panchayat which was used for community purposes. The following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether there is any mis-appreciation or non reading of evidence by the courts below? b) Whether the suit was not filed by the authorised person as per Order 6 Rule 14 CPC? c) Whether the compliance was not done in the above suit as per Order 1 Rule 8 CPC? d) Whether the remand order has been complied with by the learned trial court? RSA No. 622 of 2007(O&M) 2 Questions No. (b), ( c ) and (d) are related questions. Learned counsel has argued that the mandatory provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC were not followed. In my opinion this objection can lie in the mouth of a person who claims that he was also one of the intended beneficiaries of a representative suit. Had the suit been dismissed then such a person could have come and made a grouse that mandatory provisions have not been followed and that had he been informed there may have been a different outcome to the suit. In the present case the suit having been allowed the fact that notice was not issued to all the persons interested would in any case not supply a cause of action to the defendant against whom the suit was decreed. Consequently questions No. (b), ( c ) and ( d) have to be answered against the appellants. Question No. (a) is a pure question of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of both the courts below but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently this appeal and the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 10, 2009 sunita