IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.4167 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.4.2010 Jumma ....Appellant Versus Sufeda ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.12613-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. R.S.A.No.4167 of 2009 The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the appellant from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land. The appellant, who was defendant, denied the allegations and also filed a counter-claim alleging that the plaintiff/respondent encroached upon a portion of the plot of the appellant. The learned trial Court as also the first Appellate Court while deciding the matter has conclusively said that the plaintiff/respondent has not encroached upon any portion of the R.S.A.No.4167 of 2009 (O&M) -2- property of the appellant but has granted liberty for fresh demarcation on the application of the party concerned so as to determine the encroachment or the extent, if any. In this view of the matter, when pure question of fact has been determined and substantial justice seems to have been done, there is no ground to interfere. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the report has not been considered in the given set of circumstances. As observed earlier, pure question of fact has been determined and in any case merely consideration or non-consideration of the report could not offset the finding of a Court if it is substantiated by other material on record. Dismissed. 20.4.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss