R.S.A.No.21 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.21 of 2009 Date of Decision : 25.08.2009 Ram Chander Rautari ...Appellant Versus Kamla Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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? Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit for declaration that the passage Marked as 'A' in the site plan is common passage for the parties, was decreed. The learned trial Court has dismissed the suit, but the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court has been set aside in appeal, holding that it is a common passage. To return the finding that it is a common passage, the learned first Appellate Court has relied upon judgment and decree dated 6.11.1996 in a suit filed by the defendant-the present appellant. In the said suit, it is the categorical case of the appellant that there is a street in front of the house of the plaintiff and across the said street, there is house of the defendant. The learned first R.S.A.No.21 of 2009 2 Appellate Court has also relied upon the report of the Local Commissioner, who in his report dated 28.2.2001 has reported that there is common passage. Apart from the said facts, the Court has taken into consideration Ex.P-1, copy of the compromise between the parties during the pendency of the suit. Another agreement dated 1.7.1989 between the parties has been taken into consideration, to hold that the disputed passage is in fact a common passage. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that compromise Ex.P-1 and agreement dated 1.7.1989 are not signed by the appellant, therefore, the first Appellate Court has wrongly taken into consideration the aforesaid documents to hold that the passage is common between the parties. Even if, the said documents are excluded from consideration, the previous judgment and decree and the report of the Local Commissioner are sufficient to return a finding that the passage is for common use. The findings have been recorded by the learned first Appellate Court on the basis of appreciation of evidence. In view of the said fact, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 25.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE