IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A.No. 153 of 2010. Decided on : 4.6.2010. Dhyan Singh …Appellant. Versus State of H.P.& Others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the appellant : Mr. Avneesh Bhardwaj vice Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Dy.A.G. Kuldip Singh , Judge (Oral) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against judgment, decree dated 8.12.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2009 affirming judgment, decree dated 23.12.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jogindernagar in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2005. 2. The appellant had filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in land comprised in khasra No.2229/1793/1 measuring 0-7-15 bighas. The suit was contested by the respondents on the grounds that the appellant is not in possession of the suit land. The trial Court had framed several issues including the issue whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. This issue was decided against the appellant. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Courts below have erred in not appreciating that appellant has identified the land in his possession by placing on record tatima Ex.PW-5/A. The trial Court has specifically discussed the statement of PW-5 Gian Chand in whose statement tatima Ex.PW-5/A was taken on record and thereafter recorded the finding that PW-5 has not supported the case of appellant regarding his possession on the suit land. The appellate Court has concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court and has upheld the finding of the trial Court that the appellant is not in possession of the suit land. 4. The two courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the appellant is not in possession of the suit land. In second appeal, the evidence cannot be re-appreciated. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment, decree. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out what material evidence has been ignored by the two courts below. The mis-construction and mis-interpretation of the documents by the two courts below has also not been established nor pointed out specifically by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no substantial question of law much less question of law involved in the appeal. 5. No other point was urged. 6. The result of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim order dated 21.4.2010 stands vacated. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. June 4, 2010. (GR)