IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1158 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.11. 2008 Madan Gopal ...... Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 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? Present: Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Jindal, Addl.AG, Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.S.K.Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 11.2.2005wherein the learned lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.3 against the judgment and decree dated 28.1.2003 allowing the plea of the appellant for injunction holding him to be in possession of a plot measuring 48 Square Yards even while dismissing his suit for declaration that he was owner thereof. The respondent No.3 had also filed a counter claim that he was in possession and that he was entitled to be allotted the said property on account of his long possession. RSA No. 1158 of 2005 -2- In my opinion it having been established that the said plot was the ownership of the respondents No. 1 and 2 the best interest which was being claimed by the appellant was that of a trespasser. On facts the learned lower Appellate Court came to a conclusion that the appellant has not been able to prove the fact of his exclusive possession over the said plot to the extent of inhering in him a right to seek an injunction. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the said finding of fact is so palpably perverse that it can be held not to have arisen on the material on the record of the courts below. I consequently dismiss this appeal, however, with no order as to costs. It is, however, clarified that the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the respondent No.3 is in possession would be construed only vis-a-vis the appellant and would not affect the right of respondents No. 1 and 2 to proceed with regard to the said property as per law. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 07, 2008 sunita