IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No.: 349 of 2007. Reserved on: 16.07.2008. Decided on: 04.08.2008. Shubh Darshan and Others … … Appellants. Versus Amrik Singh and Another … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Kapil Dev Sood and Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocates. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This regular second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Una on 16.4.2007 in civil appeal No.4/03 RBT No.270/05/03. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs for convenience sake) have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellants /defendants (hereinafter referred to as Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - the defendants for convenience sake). The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement. The trial Court decreed the suit on 11th December, 2002. The defendants preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2002 before the learned Additional ‘District Judge (Fast Track Court), Una. The learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Una dismissed the appeal on 16.4.2007. This regular second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Una. Mr. Ajay Sharma has strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then contended that both the Courts below have mis-read the evidence led by the parties. Mr. Kapil Dev Sood has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. The dispute between the parties lies in a very narrow compass. The dispute is qua passage. Ex.PW-1/A is the site plan prepared by the draughtsman. Ex.PW-2/B is the copy of the report prepared by Shri Sanjeev Kalota who was appointed Local Commissioner. PW-2 Shri Sanjeev Kalota had deposed that the suit land was identified by him. The defendant has admitted that he was present on the spot when the Local Commissioner visited the spot and presence sheet Ex.PW-2/A was signed by him. In the report it has come that the alleged path is 10 feet in width. In concluding portion of the report, the Local Commissioner had made an observation that the defendants had laid some stones upto the - 3 - height of more than one foot. The plaintiff Amrik Singh had appeared as PW-3 and corroborated the facts mentioned in the report as well as in the plaint. It is evident from the record that site plan of the parties shows that Khasra No.1469 is path which joins the path which is in dispute. The defendant admittedly has not filed any objection to the report Ex.PW-2/B. The defendant has not stated anything in his cross-examination about the report. The defendant has admitted that Khasra No.1469 is a common passage and that passage is used by the parties for the purpose of taking their tractors etc. to their sheds. The learned Courts below after taking into consideration the site plan Ex.PW-1/A and report Ex.PW-2/B have returned the correct findings that the path in question was obstructed by the defendant. Pure findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below need not be disturbed by this Court. There is no question of law much-less any substantial question of law involved in this regular second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. August 04, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.