1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No. 451 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22nd April, 2010 Bachan Singh and others Appellants Versus Roshan Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellants: Mr.J.R.Poswal, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant assailing the concurrent findings of fact. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD. 3. Whether there is no cause of action, as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts? OPD. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Based on the material on record, in terms of judgment and decree dated 26.6.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nalagarh, District Solan, in Civil Suit No.161/1 of 203, titled as Roshan vs. Bachan Singh and others, the plaintiff’s suit was decreed to the following effect:- “In view of my findings on all issues above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the defendants are permanently restrained from encroaching upon and raising any construction over the street measuring 0.60 mtrs. in width and 3.0 mtrs. in length existing in between the houses of the plaintiff and land of defendants as shown in site plan Ex.P2. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree be drawn. File after its due completion be consigned to record room.” The defendants assailed the same and their Civil Appeal No. 16-NL/13 of 08/07 stands dismissed by Additional District Judge, Solan in terms of judgment and decree dated 8.4.2009. Notice in this appeal was issued to the parties. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. In my view, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The suit land has been held to be “Abadi deh “in terms of revenue record Ext.P-1. It has been proved on record by the plaintiff as also admitted by the defendants in cross-examination that the IPH department of the State Government of H.P. had laid down water supply pipes on the suit land. The path over the suit land has been proved to be used by the general public. The Courts below have found the defendants not to be owner of the suit land. They have no right, title or interest thereupon. Hence their attempt 3 to raise construction has been rightly held to be without any legal right. Under the circumstances, the trial Court rightly decreed the plaintiff’s suit restraining the defendants from raising any construction on the suit land. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal, without any merit is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 24th April, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.