IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2142 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.3.2010 Om Parkash and another ....Appellants Versus Smt. Phool Pati and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.3263--C of 2010 After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and considering the contents of the application, the impugned order is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. C.M. is allowed. C.M.No.6363-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.M.No.6364-C of 2009 C.M. is allowed. Annexures A/1 and A/2 are taken on record. C.M.No.6362-C of 2009 in/and R.S.A.No.2142 of 2009 R.S.A.No.2142 of 2009 (O&M) -2- This is plaintiffs' appeal directed against the judgment of the trial Court dated 17.1.2008 and the first Appellate Court dated 11.9.2008. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction pleading that they are owners in possession of houses bearing Nos.299 and 299-A and that there is an open courtyard in front of their houses and the defendants/respondents are affixing a gate therein. The defendants/respondents denied this plea and stated that there is a gali which leads to a dead end and that they are affixing the gate in front of ther houses and that the plaintiffs/appellants had nothing to do with the gali. A Local Commissioner was appointed during the course of proceedings and his report indicated that a mason and a labourer was working and they were going to install an iron gate after breaking the wall towards the courtyard and main gate of the houses of the plaintiffs. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents had not associated themselves with the Local Commissioner's report. The plaintiffs/appellants has drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure A/1 which is a site plan and has been placed on record. This is a site plan submitted by the plaintiffs/appellants themselves and it appears that in front of the houses of the plaintiffs there exists a gali and the point where the gate is being affixed is shown as Mark X which is right in the gali in front of the houses of the respondents. To the naked eye also it appears that the plaintiffs' case regarding the existence of courtyard and the interference by the defendants is incorrect. In any eventuality, this is a question of fact which has been R.S.A.No.2142 of 2009 (O&M) -3- determined by the courts below. No substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. That apart, there is a delay of 130 days in filing the appeal which has not been satisfactorily explained. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 23.3.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss