R.S.A No. 1232 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1232 of 2007 Date of decision : July 10, 2009 Charanjit Singh and others, ...... Appellant (s) v. Jagdishara Nand and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the respondents. *** 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) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondents for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from illegally interfering in their possession over the suit property. Both the Courts have relied upon the revenue record to arrive at a conclusion that the property in dispute is Dharamshala be-itmaam Mahant Mohan Dass, and have on fact disbelieved the version of the appellants that the property in dispute is a Gurdwara or the allegations of the appellants R.S.A No. 1232 of 2007 ::2:: that they are members of a Managing Committee formed to govern the same. Counsel for the appellants has proposed the following substantial questions :- “ a) Whether the judgment and decree of both the Courts below is perverse and illegal ? b) Whether when both the plaints of previous suit and the subsequent suit is qua the same subject matter or for same claim; is barred because the previous suit is withdrawn without any permission to file fresh one on the same cause of action ? c) Whether a Will can be looked into for collateral purposes or any purpose when it is not proved at all ? d) Whether a rank licensee or a trespasser after term of license is entitled to claim relief for permanent injunction ?” As regards question No.(a) is concerned, the same is a pure question 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 based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same perverse. As regards question no.(b), the learned lower appellate has mainly held that a suit for injunction can be filed at any time when there is threat of dis- possession. As regards question No.(c), it may be mentioned that what has weighed with the Courts below is the revenue record and not the Will. As regards question No.(d), it is seen that the said question does not arise at all in the present appeal. R.S.A No. 1232 of 2007 ::3:: Consequently, I hold the questions proposed against the appellants and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 10, 2009. JUDGE `kk'