IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.960 of 2005 (O&M) Decided on : 14.09.2009 Jaiveer ... Appellant versus Krishna Meena & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Sr. Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers 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. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the ld. Lower Appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondents and thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant claiming that the property in dispute was public thorough fare and praying for injunction restraining the respondents from raising any construction/demolishing encroachment in the said property. It may be noticed that the Ld. Lower Appellate Court primarily dismissed the suit on the ground that adequate evidence regarding the public thorough fare was not led by the appellant, since he produced only a site plan and the draftsman apart from some other oral evidence. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether there is any mis-appreciation or non- reading of the evidence by the courts below? RSA No.960 of 2005 (O&M) -2- ii)Whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the defendants-respondents when they have not produced the documents of ownership? iii)Whether this suit is liable to be decreed on the basis of the contradictory stand taken by the defendants? iv)Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit? It would be seen that questions No.(i) to (iii) are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the evidence recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render them perverse. With regard to question No.(iv), when the answer to questions No.(i) to (iii) are held to be against the appellant, the said question does not arise in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. Since the main case is decided, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. September 14, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE