R.S.A No. 117 of 2006 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 117 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : July 15, 2009 Sohan Lal, ...... Appellant (s) v. Kartar Singh and others. ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondents from forcibly dispossessing him from the suit land. Counsel for the appellant has proposed the following questions:- “ i) Whether the impugned judgments are wrong, illegal, perverse and based on misreading of evidence ? ii) Whether the truthful solitary statement of plaintiff is liable to be rejected in the absence of corroboration ? R.S.A No. 117 of 2006 (O&M) ::2:: iii) Whether the plaintiff can take advantage of the admissions made by the defendants ?” It would be seen that all these questions are pure questions of fact. As regards question No.2, counsel for the appellant has sought to rely upon judgments which lay down that it is not illegal for a Court to return its findings even on a solitary witness. There is no quarrel with this proposition of law. However, in the present case, the Courts below have not held that it is not open to them to decree the suit on the basis of testimony of one witness only. Rather, they have held that the evidence of the appellant requires corroboration, meaning thereby the Courts below have not accepted that the testimony of the appellant was entirely credible. As regards the third question, counsel for the appellant has stressed on the fact that all the respondents in one voice stated that they had no connection with the land in dispute. He has argued that in view of this admission, the suit qua these respondents should have been decreed. I am afraid it is not possible for me to accept this proposition of law. It is trite to say that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and if on fact he has not been able to prove his possession, no weakness in the case of the defendants can help him. Consequently, I hold the questions proposed against the appellant and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 15, 2009. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 117 of 2006 (O&M) ::3::