-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 3152 of 2009 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 12, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 3152 of 2009 (O&M). Malkiat Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Kanwaljit Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr.S.P. Soi Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. K.S. Cheema, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Defendant-appellant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 3152 of 2009 (O&M). defendant-appellant for mandatory injunction directing him (defendant-appellant) to remove the encroachment illegally made by him thereby damaging the back wall of the house of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed. It is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the wall in dispute is the exclusive ownership of the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-appellant has no right to encroach upon the said wall by cutting the plaster and bricks in the shape of grooves, which caused damage to the back wall of the house of the plaintiff-respondent. Accordingly, the defendant- appellant was directed to remove the encroachment made by him on the back wall of the house of the plaintiff. Before the trial Court, it was not disputed by the defendant-appellant that the house of the plaintiff-respondent was built prior to the construction raised by the defendant-appellant. Under the circumstances, both the Courts below returned the finding that the defendant-appellant had encroached upon the property of the plaintiff-respondent. This finding recorded by both the Courts below is a finding of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that such finding is based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the Courts below, -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 3152 of 2009 (O&M). which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 12, 2011. JUDGE ak