IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No. 271 of 1996 Date of Decision: 15th July, 2008. Jagdish Singh Appellant Versus Inder Singh (D) through his LRs and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellants: Mr.G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.B.C.Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.O.P.Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. K.R.Thakur, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Civil Suit No. 367/1 of 1987 filed by (1) Shri Inder Singh, (2) Smt. Sundru Devi and (3) Smt. Fuli Devi, as plaintiffs against (1) Shri Partap Singh, (2) Shri Jagdish (3) Shri Ramesh, (4) Shri Vajey Singh, (5) Shri Udham Singh, (6) Smt. Soba, (7) Smt. Satya Devi, (8) Smt. Soda Devi, (9) Smt. Leela Devi and (10) Smt. Gayatri, as defendants, was decreed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Theog, District Shimla in terms of its judgment, decree dated 29.8.1990. The plaintiffs were found to have perfected their title on the basis of adverse possession and thus the defendants were permanently restrained from interfering with the suit land comprising in Khata/ Khatauni Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 No. 12 min/20 Khasra No. 265 min, measuring 3 Bighas, situated in Chak Bhalewth, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). The defendants’ appeal being Civil Appeal No. 113-S/13 of 1992/90 was dismissed by the District Judge (Forests), Shimla, in terms of its judgment dated 2.5.1996. The findings of fact were upheld by the first Appellate Court. Assailing the same, the defendants filed the present appeal, which was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “1. Whether the plea of adverse possession has neither been set up nor proved. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Verma learned senior counsel for the appellant-defendant urged that another substantial question of law which arises for consideration is as to “whether the plaint ought to have been rejected by the trial Court for the reasons that it did not disclose any cause of action”. According to him if the same is decided in favour of the appellant the other question of law was not required to be gone into. Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs agreed to the same. After the matter was heard for some time, learned counsel for the parties consented to the passing of the following order. From the plaint, it is evident that plaint does not disclose any cause of action and learned counsel for the parties admitted the same. In 3 this view of the matter, with the consent of the parties, the plaint is rejected. Consequently, the findings of fact returned by the Courts below in terms of judgment and decree dated 2.5.1996 passed in Civil Appeal No. 113-S/13 of 1992/90 and judgment and decree dated 29.8.1990 in Civil Suit No. 367/1 of 1987 are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. It shall, however, be open for the plaintiffs to institute fresh proceedings, if so advised, on the same cause of action in accordance with law. No costs. 15th July, 2008 (Sanjay Karol), (C) Judge.