RSA No. 68 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 18, 2009 1. CM No.239-C of 2007 and RSA No. 68 of 2007 (O&M) Jagir Singh ...... Appellant Versus Piar Kaur ...... Respondent 2. RSA No. 1729 of 2009 (O&M) Jagir Singh ...... Appellant Versus Piar Kaur ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S.Brar, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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. CM No.239-C of 2007 For the reasons recorded in the application, the delay of 83 days RSA No. 68 of 2007 (O&M) 2 in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. Main case This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing RSAs No. 68 of 2007 and 1729 of 2009 having arisen out of the same judgment and decree. These appeals have been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant while decreeing that of the respondent. The appellant had claimed that the respondent had no right to remove the underground pipes which he had installed in the land of the respondent while the respondent in his suit had claimed mandatory injunction directing the appellant to remove the underground pipes which he had laid in his land. At one stage learned counsel for the appellant had stated that the appellant was ready to compensate the respondent. He had stated that before filing this appeal his client had offered Rs.75,000/- to the respondent but he had not agreed. Matter was adjourned to enable learned counsel for the respondent to seek instructions in this regard. Consequently learned Senior advocate appearing for the respondent has stated that he has no objection if his client is compensated and has further very graciously conceded that what ever amount would be fixed by this Court would be acceptable to the respondent. However, the appellant states that now he is ready to pay Rs.55,000/-. The following questions have been proposed:- 1) Whether the findings of both the courts below with respect to the limitation of the suit filed by the defendant are erroneous and against facts of the case? RSA No. 68 of 2007 (O&M) 3 2) Whether the findings of both the courts below with respect to the issues framed by the court in the suit filed by the appellant are against the facts of the case? 3) Whether the defendant has been substantially able to prove her case, keeping in view the peculiar facts as there are two different suits which have been decided by the common judgment and findings of the issues are not in accordance with the facts of each case? 4) Whether the appellant is entitled for relief? Questions No. 2, 3 and 4 are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Once questions No. 2, 3 and 4 are held against the appellant the decision on question No.1 becomes academic. In my opinion after making an offer of Rs.75,000/- the amount of Rs.55,000/- being offered today is not equitable. Consequently these appeals as well as the applications for stay are dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE September 18, 2009 sunita