IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.556 of 2000. Decided on: 3rd March, 2010. _______________________________________________________ Dinesh Kumar ….Appellant. Versus Anita Sood and others ……..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advoc with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral). Appellant was plaintiff before the learned trial Court. He sought mandatory injunction against the defendants/respondents, which was dismissed. First Appeal [No.221-S/13 of 1998] was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, as such, he filed this Regular Second Appeal, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and the threatened act of the defendants to demolish the wall of the premises or the back portion thereof and construction of the wall which Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?