IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 2349 of 2008 Date of decision:- 18.12.2009 Karamjit Singh appellant vs Sadha Singh and others Respondent Present: Mr. RK Shukla, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. The suit of the plaintiff- respondent for permanent injunction against the defendant- appellant for restraining him from making any kind of encroachment or construction or blocking the passage in dispute, as shown in the site plan, attached with the plaint and marked as ABCD has been decreed by the courts below. On appreciation of the evidence, a concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at by the courts below that on the basis of the site plan and the evidence produced on the file, it is clear that the portion in dispute EFGH in the site plan is a passage/ street leads to the plot of the plaintiff- respondent, shown as ABCD in the site plan. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the site plan produced by the plaintiff has not been established properly . The site plan produced by the defendant- appellant has wrongly been rejected. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the judgment of the courts below, I am of the opinion that the concurrent finding of fact that portion marked as EFGH in the site plan is a street, does not warrant any interference. I do not find any sufficient ground to re-appreciate the evidence regarding the validity of the site plan. Dismissed. December 18 ,2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE