IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.82 of 2010 Date of decision : September 6, 2010 Sardar Harnam Singh …Appellant. Versus Amar Nath Panja and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction and possession, claiming that the suit property is owned and possessed by Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Sujanpur Tira and that he is one of the office bearers of the Gurudwara and authorised to file the suit on its behalf. It is alleged that defendants, without any right, title or interest, were threatening to interfere in the possession of the suit land. In the alternative, prayer for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants-respondents to remove the encroachment already made, was made. Possession was also claimed, in case the Court came to the conclusion that the defendants had already ousted the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have given a concurrent Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… finding that the suit land has not been proved to belong to the Gurudwara. 3. I have gone through the record. There is absolutely no evidence, supporting appellant’s claim that the suit land belonged to Gurudwara. Suit land is recorded as Abadi Deh. It is alleged that there is an admission by the witnesses of the defendants about the existence of Gurudwara. There is no admission that the Gurudwara exists on the suit land. According to the witnesses of the defendants, the Gurudwara is 100 metres away from the suit land, which measures 8 marlas and on which an oil tanker has been placed. Suggestions were put to the witnesses of the defendants, on behalf of the plaintiff, that the oil tanker is placed on the site of the Gurudwara, which suggestions were denied. Thus, there is no admission. No substantial question of law arises. Questions of law, as formulated by the appellant and filed with the Memorandum of Appeal, are not questions of law but of facts. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending applications stand disposed of, having become infructuous. September 6, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J