R.S.A No. 2282 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2282 of 2007 Date of decision : September 01, 2009 Dr. Bansi Dhar and another, ...... Appellant (s) v. Shiv Ice Factory Hansi and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Parveen Hans, Advocate for the respondents. *** 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 concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for injunction directing the respondents to remove the ice cooling tank, and restraining them from fixing ice-cooling pipes, as also from using ammonia gas in their ice factory. The following questions have been proposed :- “(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the approach of the learned Courts below in R.S.A No. 2282 of 2007 ::2:: dismissing the suit filed by the appellants by misreading and mis-construing the material documentary as well as oral evidence on record can be sustained in law ? (b) Whether in the fats and circumstances of the instant case there being ample evidence on record to show that the appellants have been running hospital and the activities of the respondents were causing nuisance to the appellants and others, the suit filed by the appellants could be dismissed ? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant could be said to be barred by limitation when the action complained of was of reoccurring nature ? (d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below that the appellants are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the suit, can be sustained in law ?” It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon by the Courts below are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would render the same perverse. Apart from these questions, counsel for the appellants has also raised an argument on the basis that in the site plans Ex.PW3/E to Ex.PW3/H, the area is shown as residential zone and, thus, the respondents cannot be permitted to run an industry. R.S.A No. 2282 of 2007 ::3:: I find that the learned lower appellate Court has correctly considered these site plans and held that these plans are proposed site plans and the appellants have not been able to show that any action had been taken on the said site plans. Learned lower appellate Court has relied upon site plans (Ex.P3 and Ex.P4) to hold that the entire area is actually a commercial area. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 01, 2009. JUDGE `kk'