RSA No. 1312 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 12430-C of 2008 & RSA No. 1312 of 2004 Date of Decision: December 18, 2008 Nav Nirman Sehyog Sabha ...... Appellant Versus Balwinder Kumar and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.B.D.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.S.Sachdeva, 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. CM No. 12430-C of 2008 CM is allowed. Person mentioned in para 3 of the application is permitted to pursue the present appeal on behalf of the appellants. R.S.A No. 1312 of 2004 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering in their possession over the land in dispute. It has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that RSA No. 1312 of 2004 2 the respondents were earlier in possession of the land and that the appellant dispossessed the respondents during the pendency of the suit. The first argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the three local commissioners who were appointed were all appointed before the present appellant was impleaded as a party and, therefore, their reports could not be relied upon. In my opinion the bare fact that a local commissioner has been appointed behind the back of a party would not per se make his report such that as cannot be considered. It is always for the Courts to see how much value can be placed on a particular report. The second argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sale in favour of the respondents having been cancelled they have now no title. The arguments put forward by learned counsel for the appellant have been countered by learned counsel for the respondents. Firstly he says that the cancellation of sale in favour of the respondents has been challenged by them and those proceedings are pending and secondly and more importantly he asserts that even if the sale in favour of the respondents has been cancelled, then they shall revert back to their previous status as being Gair Maurusi tenants over the land in dispute and even in that eventuality they could maintain a suit for injunction against the person who had earlier dispossessed them. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that admittedly the respondents were dispossessed by the appellant in the year 1989 but the appellant was impleaded only in the year 1994 i.e. after a period of 5 years and thus the suit was beyond limitation. It has been RSA No. 1312 of 2004 3 brought to my notice that originally the respondents had impleaded the then President of the appellant Pandit Brij Mohan Sharma as a defendant and subsequently when they came to know that in fact he was acting not in his personal capacity but in capacity of the President of appellant No.1, at that stage the appellant was impleaded. In my opinion the action of Pt. Brij Mohan Sharma of trying to dispossess the plaintiff was the subject matter of the suit. The fact that Pt. Brij Mohan Sharma was not acting in his individual capacity but was acting as the President of the appellant would not have such a fatal effect on the suit that the same could not be maintained at all. The other findings relate to the question of possession of the respondents which are pure findings of act. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that these findings are either perverse or can be held to be not arising from the material on the record. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 18, 2008 sunita