IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 155 of 2006 Date of decision 5.4.2006 Nikku …Appellant. Versus Shri Kant …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice : Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. C.B. Singh, Advocate. For respondent : Nemo. Surjit Singh, Judge ( Oral ) Heard and gone through the record. The only question that has been raised by the learned counsel, representing the appellant, during the course of his submissions, is that though the suit was filed in respect of Khasra No. 1022, the first appellate Court, by reversing the decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the trial Court, has granted a decree in respect of Khasra No. 1022/1. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… 2. For appreciation of the aforesaid submission, facts may be noticed. Respondent / plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant / defendant. It was alleged that the respondent / plaintiff was the owner in possession of Khasra No. 1022, but the appellant / defendant had been threatening to interfere in the possession of the respondent / plaintiff and had started digging a portion thereof. Besides seeking relief of injunction, the respondent / plaintiff prayed for passing of a decree of possession, in case the appellant / defendant happened to make encroachment on any portion of the suit land, during the pendency of the suit or the Court found that he had already made encroachment on some portion of the said Khasra number. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Appeal was filed by the respondent / plaintiff in the Court of District Judge. The learned District Judge, on re-appraisal of the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the defendant / appellant has been causing interference in the possession of the respondent / plaintiff over Khasra No. 1022, of which he (respondent / plaintiff) is, admittedly the owner. The learned District Judge has also found that demarcation carried out by the Kanungo and confirmed by the Naib-Tehsildar, proves that a portion of Khasra No. 1022 to the extent of one Marla, depicted by min No. 1022/1, has been encroached upon by the appellant / defendant. With these findings, the learned District Judge has reversed the decree of the trial Court and passed a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the entire suit land, besides passing a decree for possession in respect of that portion of Khasra No. 1022, measuring one Marla, over which the appellant / defendant is reported to have made encroachment and which is depicted by Khasra No. 1022/1 in the report of the Kanungo. …3… 3. It is a matter of common knowledge that when-ever any encroachment is found on any portion of a given Khasra number, that portion is depicted by min number and the normal course of depicting such min number is to write the original number and then to draw the line below it and below that line to another figure say 1,2,3,4 etc. is written. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant / defendant that the decree for possession has been passed in respect of a number different from the number in respect of which the suit was filed, is without merit. 4. No other point having been raised, the appeal is dismissed. April 5, 2006 (BC) ( Surjit Singh ), J.