IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.157 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: January 19, 2010. Ramesh Chand Goyal & Anr. ...Appellant(s) v. Bhagwan Dass ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Rajesh Narang, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court whereby his suit to the extent of granting injunction against the respondent from removing one pipal tree and 8 beri trees from the land in dispute, has been dismissed. The courts below, on appreciation of evidence, have found that no evidence has been led by the plaintiff that there existed any pipal tree or beri trees in the suit property and, therefore, the question of defendant having gone there to cut and remove the same does not arise. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the pleadings of the parties. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had earlier filed a complaint under Section 379/34 IPC against the respondent for committing theft of these trees, which was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur vide his order dated 14.3.2003 holding that the defendant had a right to cut the wild trees, grass and bushes from the tenanted premises and he got removed the wild growth from the tenanted premises in order to clean the premises and, thus, has not committed any theft. The question whether the trees in question existed in the land in dispute or not, is a question of fact and the courts below, on appreciation of evidence, have recorded a finding of fact in this regard that the plaintiff has failed to prove the same. In view thereof, I find that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. January 19, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge