In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... CM No.246-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No.78 of 2008 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:16.1.2008 Jagraj Singh and others .....Applicants-Appellants v. Harbans Kaur .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. P.L. Singla, Advocate for the applicants-appellants. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) CM No.246-C/2008: Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Clerk of the counsel for the appellants had misplaced the brief. It is submitted that when the appellants on 25.11.2007 asked regarding the case the brief was searched and it was found in the bundle of admitted cases in his office. The mistake on the part of the Clerk of the counsel, it is submitted, is not intentional. The affidavit of the counsel is attached with the CM. In view of the above, the delay of 620 days in re-filing the appeal after it was initially filed on 1.3.2006 is condoned. The CM stands allowed. RSA No.78/2008 (O&M): The appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala whereby their appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala passed on CM No.246-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No.78 of 2008 (O&M) [2] 20.3.2002 has been dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent Harbans Kaur filed a suit that the defendants-appellants had encroached upon her land measuring 4 Marlas. A mandatory injunction was sought for directing the defendants to demolish the constructions that had been raised by them over the said land. The defendants contested the suit pleading that the plaintiff was in possession of land measuring land 13 Kanals 19 Marlas. It was denied that there has been any encroachment of the land of the plaintiff. During proceedings in the trial Court a Local Commissioner, namely, Rupinder Manku, Naib Tehsildar, Barnala was appointed. He visited the spot and prepared his report Ex.P.6. In terms of his report it was found that 4 Marlas of land had been encroached and included in Khasra No.1261 measuring 5 Kanals 2 Marlas. On demarcation of Khasra No.1261, no shortage was found of the land of the defendants-appellants. The learned trial Court observed after going through the report Ex.P.6, site plan Ex.PY and deposition of Rupinder Manku, Naib Tehsildar, who appeared as defendants' witness as DW-6, that the demarcation was conducted properly and was not in violation of the directions of the Financial Commissioner or the rules and orders of the High Court. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court as regards the demarcation was affirmed by the first appellate Court in terms of its impugned judgment and decree. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the demarcation that has been carried out is not in accordance with the Financial Commissioner's instructions or the provisions of the rules and orders framed by this Court. However, during the course of hearing he has CM No.246-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No.78 of 2008 (O&M) [3] not been able to point out any infirmity to show as to how there has been an infraction of the rules and orders of this Court or the instructions of the Financial Commissioner. In terms of Section 100(3) CPC, the questions of law formulated by the appellants are as follows:- “i) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are perverse and are liable to be set aside? ii) Whether the demarcation done by the Local Commissioner which has been relied upon by the Courts below has been done in accordance with the provisions of law? iii) Whether the appellants can be held to have encroached upon the area of the plaintiff-respondent when there is no excess in the land occupied by them?” A perusal of the above shows that these are in the nature of issues that are involved and do not raise any substantial question of law. In the circumstances, it is evident that no question of law is involved in the case and the encroachment of four Marlas land which is concurrently found to be established by the Courts below is a pure finding of fact. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. January 16, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*