RSA No. 3299 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 28, 2010 1. RSA No. 3299 of 2008 Mehar Singh and others vs. Bashir and others 2. RSA No. 4316 of 2008 Karan Pal vs. Naseerudin and another Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr.Deepak Arora , Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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. These two appeals have arisen out of cross suits both filed for injunction. In RSA no. 4316 of 2008 the case of the appellant-plaintiff has been rejected by stating that he was not able to stand on his own legs and could not take the benefit of any weakness in the case of the respondent. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees have resulted in denial of the fundamental and easementary right of passage to the house/property of the appellant-plaintiff? RSA No. 3299 of 2008 2 ii)Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are illegal,perverse and being a result of misreading of evidence and mis-appreciation of law, deserve to be set aside? iii)Whether the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction in view of the admissions of the defendants? It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Learned courts below have found that the plaintiff was seeking to obtain injunction in respect of 40 marlas of land on the basis of an agreement to sell with one Radha Krishan; however, Radha Krishan was owner only of 13 Marlas 8 Sarsahis. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings of the Courts below recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. As regards RSA No.3299 of 2008, the suit of the other side has been decreed on the ground that the other suit has been dismissed. However, as mentioned above, the other suit was dismissed despite the weakness in the case of the defendant. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to deny that no independent appreciation of evidence has been done in this case. It is also not as if both the suits were decided together. In this view of the matter learned counsel for the respondents has gracefully concded that the present would be an appropriate case where the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the learned trial court for fresh decision. In view of this statement of learned counsel for the respondent RSA No.3299 of 2008 is allowed. Judgments of the Courts below are set aside and the matter is remanded RSA No. 3299 of 2008 3 back to the trial court for fresh decision. Parties through counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 17.05.2010. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 28, 2010 sunita