RSA No.3280 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.7977-C of 2006 & RSA No.3280 of 2006 Decided On : 21.10.2009 Puran Dass ... Appellant versus Jagan Nath & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.B.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. **** 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) CM No.7977-C of 2006 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 98 days in filing the application is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.3280 of 2006 This appeal has been filed against the order of the ld. Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the Trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from blocking the ventilators and water spouts of the respondent and directing the appellant to RSA No.3280 of 2006 -2- remove the staircase constructed by the appellant in the disputed gali. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the direction issued by the ld. First Appellate Court regarding demolition of stairs without being proved that the same caused obstruction to the easementary rights of the plaintiffs as the same were constructed 30-40 years before, are illegal? ii)Whether the application for additional evidence of the plaintiff-respondents is liable to be dismissed? iii)Whether the ld. First Appellate Court has misread the evidence of the appellant-defendant and the other defendant Municipal Committee regarding old construction of stairs in gali? iv)Whether the ld. First Appellate Court has gone beyond pleadings and without framing any issue in deciding ownership of the gali? It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. The ld. Appellate Court has relied upon the Conveyance Deed and the site plan of the appellant to come to the conclusion that the area in dispute was a gali between two houses and has disbelieved the version of the appellant that the area in dispute was his private property. He has also relied upon the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Trial Court, which has also found these facts. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings RSA No.3280 of 2006 -3- recorded are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence, which render them so perverse as to justify interference under Section 100 of CPC. With these observations, this appeal is dismissed. October 21, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE