IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA Nos. 62 & 63 of 2006. Date of decision: 23.11.2009. 1. RSA No. 62 of 2006. Inder Jeet Singh & ors. ….. Appellants. Vs. Rajnish Kumar & ors. …. Respondents. 2. RSA No. 63 of 2006. Inder Jeet Singh & ors. ….. Appellants. Vs. Rajnish Kumar & ors. …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Anita Dogra, Advocate vice Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This judgement shall dispose of two appeals i.e. RSA Nos. 62 of 2006 and 63 of 2006 as both of them have arisen from the common judgement and decree dated 19.11.2005. The appellants were plaintiffs and they had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession. The suit was contested by Bishan Singh, the predecessor of respondents and was decreed by learned trial court on 28.2.2005 and a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant Bishan Singh Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… from raising any construction on the suit land till partition in accordance with law was passed. 2. The plaintiffs as well as Bishan Singh filed two separate appeals against the judgement, decree dated 28.2.2005, but both the appeals were dismissed by the learned District Judge on 19.11.2005 by a common judgement, decree. The plaintiffs have filed two appeals and assailed the common judgement and decree dated 19.11.2005. In second appeals Bishan Singh had died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The plaintiffs themselves had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession. The learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and in appeal it was maintained by the learned lower Appellate Court. The decree is in favour of the plaintiffs. It has not been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that once the decree is in favour of appellants how the appeals are maintainable. No other point was urged. No substantial question of law arises in both the appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. CMP No. 96 of 2006 in RSA No. 62 of 2006. 3. Infructuous, in view of the disposal of the main appeals. November 23, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.