RSA No. 1483 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 4414-C of 2009 and RSA No. 1483 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: January 13 , 2010 Kirpal Singh and another ...... Appellants Versus Virender Singh ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.B.S.Saroha, 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. 4414-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, delay of 323 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 1483 of 2009(O&M) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from encroaching upon any portion of the street by demolishing the existing gate and installing a new gate. RSA No. 1483 of 2009(O&M) 2 The following questions have been proposed:- 1. Whether the Gram Panchayat Sasauli and the Municipal Committee, Jagadhri were the necessary parties in this case because according to the plaintiff, the land in dispute was a public street and thus naturally vested in the Gram Panchayat Sasauli or within the Municipal Committee, Jagadhri? 2. Whether the two courts below had mis-appreciated and misconstrued the evidence on record and the suit of the plaintiff had been decreed on account of misreading of evidence by the two courts below? 3. Whether the two courts below had totally ignored the evidence of the defendants while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and thus wrong conclusion had been given by the two courts? The main questions are questions No. 2 and 3 which 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. Once questions No. 2 and 3 are answered against the appellants, question No.1 loses all importance. Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 13 , 2010 sunita