RSA No.847 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.847 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.01.2009 Gram Panchayat, Masoodpur ..Appellant Vs. Pt.Ishwar Singh & Anr. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Sandeep K.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) CM Nos.2543-C & 2544-C of 2008 Allowed as prayed. RSA No.847 of 2008 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 1.12.2006 and 31.7.2007 passed by the learned courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was ordered to be decreed. The plaintiff/respondent brought a suit for injunction against RSA No.847 of 2008 (O&M) 2 the appellant Panchayat seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in the possession of the property of the plaintiff from demolishing the house constructed thereon. On notice, defendants appeared and contested the suit by raising a plea that the property in dispute was rasta and, therefore, the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Plea was also taken that the plaintiff/respondent could not be allowed to encroach upon the rasta which is used by the residents of the village. Learned courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the suit is merely for injunction and therefore, the civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as the question of title was not in dispute. Learned trial court was also pleased to appoint local commissioner to demarcate the land and find out if there is any encroachment on the street. The local commissioners found that the property belongs to the plaintiff/respondent and there was no encroachment. In view of the evidence brought on record and keeping in view the report of local commissioner suit was decreed. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the finding recorded by the learned courts below is perverse and therefore, following substantial question of law arise in appeal:- “ Whether the judgments and decree passed by the learned courts below are perverse and outcome of misreading of evidence?” However, on consideration of the matter, I find that no such RSA No.847 of 2008 (O&M) 3 substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Merely because there is report by the consolidation authorities holding that there was encroachment could not be taken to be binding on the court when it has been found to be wrong on appreciation of evidence produced on record, as well as the report of the local commissioner. Learned courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded concurrent finding of fact that there was no encroachment over path by the plaintiff and therefore, he was entitled to injunction. As there was no dispute qua title, thus the bar under section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation), Act was not applicable. No merit. Dismissed. 22.01.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge