R.S.A No. 2555 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2555 of 2007 Date of decision : November 19, 2008 Satyawan, ...... Appellant. through Mr.N.C.Kinra, Advocate v. Om Parkash ...... Respondent through Mr.Ashwani Gour, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for injunction restraining the appellant from placing his Karries and Shatirs on the wall which is between the properties of both the parties. Both the Courts have found on fact that the wall was exclusively owned and possessed by the respondent. Counsel for the appellant has challenged these findings primarily on the ground that the respondent was pressing his title only through a photostat copy of an agreement of sale. I find this argument to be fallacious because the respondent pressed his title not only on the basis of the document but also on the basis of the testimony of the vendor who R.S.A No. 2555 of 2007 ::2:: appeared before the Court and deposed that he had indeed sold the disputed plot to the respondent. The second contention of counsel for the appellant is that the testimony of the said vendor could not have been considered because in the verification clause of his affidavit it was not clarified as to which portion of the affidavit was verified on the basis of the knowledge and which portion was verified on the basis of belief. Learned counsel in this regard relies upon a decision of this Court reported as Inder Pal Dua & another vs M/S Yash Garg & Co, 2002(3) CCC 437 (P&H). A perusal of the affidavit reveals that the portion regarding the sale of the disputed property and the factum of raising construction thereon by the respondent (which are the relevant parts) were verified on the basis of knowledge. It is also to be noticed that the appellant did not bring any evidence to show that the said wall was owned by him. In this view of the matter, I hold that the questions of law proposed do not arise in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 19 , 2008. JUDGE `kk'