RSA No. 2315 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos. 14472-C and 14473-C of 2009 and RSA No. 2315 of 2003 Date of Decision: February 18 , 2010 Dharam Pal ........Appellant Versus Hari Ram alias Hari Singh (since deceased)representd through LRS ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.M.L.Saini, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. **** 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. CM No. 14472-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, delay of 42 days in filing the application for restoration of the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No. 14473-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded this application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number. With the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, appeal is taken up for motion hearing. RSA No. 2315 of 2003 This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned RSA No. 2315 of 2003 2 Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby partly decreeing the suit of the respondents for mandatory injunction directing the appellant to remove his wall adjoining to the Eastern wall of the appellant- plaintiff in such a way that the ventilators of the appellant are opened. The learned Lower Appellate Court on the basis of a previous partition decree between the parties dated 4.6.1977 (Ex.P1) came to the finding of fact that the wall constructed by the appellant had to be removed to the extent that the ventilators of the respondents could be opened. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that this finding of fact is either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of evidence so as to be liable for interference under section 100 CPC. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the revenue record showing the appellant to be in possession of the suit land has been ignored by the courts below? ii)Whether the claim of the respondents on the basis of amendment in Act is not sustainable particularly when the said amendment is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Full Bench o this Hon'ble Court? iii)Whether the decision to be rendered by the Hon'ble Full Bench is binding upon the appellant and till the decision of the Full Bench, the appellant is entitled for injunction as prayed for? As regards question No. (i), as mentioned above the finding of fact regarding the unauthorised nature of the wall of the appellant (to the extent that it blocks the ventilators of the respondents) has been held to be unexceptionable. Learned counsel has conceded that questions No. (ii) and (iii) have no relation with the controversy in hand and seem to have been inserted mistakenly. RSA No. 2315 of 2003 3 Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 18, 2010 sunita