R.S.A.No.4225 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.4225 of 2009 Decided on: November 19, 2009. Sarjeet etc. .. Appellants VERSUS Rattan Singh and another. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the appellants. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents for permanent injunction has been decreed relying upon the report of Local Commissioner EX.PW2/H. The Courts below have held that the land in dispute bears Ahata No.5, Ghar No.5, and that the defendants- appellants have got no concern with the land in dispute which had been in possession of the plaintiffs. It has also been held by both the Courts below that the plaintiffs had been wrongly dispossessed by . . . 1 R.S.A.No.4225 of 2009 the defendants during pendency of the suit, as such, the plaintiffs- respondents are entitled to the possession over the suit land and that the defendants-appellants are liable to remove the encroachments made by them over the property in dispute. Counsel for the defendants-appellants has submitted that the report of Local Commissioner regarding demarcation is not sustainable in law as the fixed points had not been choosen in accordance with law. He also claims that the defendants-appellants have been able to establish better possessory title than the plaintiffs-respondents. After hearing counsel for the defendants-appellants, at length, and going through the judgments and decrees and the observations of the Courts below on the basis of appreciation of evidence regarding report of Local Commissioner and other facts, no substantial question of law seems to be arising in the present case warranting interference in the second appeal. A concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at by the Courts below that the defendants have not been able to establish better possessory title over the property in dispute which stands clearly depicted in the plaint and established by the report of Local Commissioner. I also do not find any merit in the contention of counsel for the appellants that the property has not been clearly described or identified before passing the decree. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE November 19, 2009. . . . 2 R.S.A.No.4225 of 2009 rka . . . 3