RSA No.56 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 250-C of 2010 and RSA No. 56 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: January 14 , 2010 Vinod Kumar and others ...... Appellants Versus Birmati and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Raman Mohinder, Advocate for the appellants. **** 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. 250-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, delay of 338 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 56 of 2010(O&M) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit for possession of the property in dispute. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the impugned judgment has been passed without proper appreciation of evidence or misreading of evidence? ii)Whether the impugned judgments suffer from patent perversity as the evidence Ex.D-2, Ex.P-1, P-2 has been completely ignored and the court exceeded its jurisdiction by RSA No.56 of 2010(O&M) 2 going beyond the subject matter? iii)Whether the impugned judgments can be passed considering the factors which are alien to the subject matter of the court? It would be seen that all the questions which have been proposed are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of both the courts recorded thereon but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application 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 January 14, 2010 sunita