IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 1444 of 2005. Date of Decision: 12th May, 2008. Improvement Trust, Pathankot, ...Petitioner through Mr. S.C.Pathela, Advocate Versus Manohar Lal & Ors. ...Respondent through Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This Regular Second Appeal is directed by the Improvement Trust, Pathankot against the judgment and decree dated 2nd April, 1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot which has been further up-held by the first Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 25th August, 2004. The respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction to direct the appellant – Improvement Trust to carve out a passage of Four Karams in width out of the land bearing Khata No.25, Khatoni No. 31, Killa Nos. 3R/9/2/2(0-19), 12/2/1(3-16), 13/1 (4-0) situated in the revenue estate of village Siali, Tehsil & District Pathankot. Though the appellant-defendant contested the suit and filed its written statement, no evidence, however, appears to have been led by it to controvert the respondent-plaintiffs' claim. Learned counsel representing the parties have been heard and the lay-out plan of the Development Expansion Scheme prepared by the appellant -Trust has been perused. Relying upon the same, it is argued that since a passage at point “A” has already been provided to connect the land/house of the respondent-plaintiffs with the main road going towards the Patel Chowk, their claim for easementary rights to provide a passage for connectivity at point “B” is liable to be turned down. Contrary to it, both the courts have concurrently held that in case the respondent- plaintiffs are required to approach the main road via the connecting passage at point “A”, it will not only cause hardship to them but they will have to travel at least two kilometers more. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out as to what serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant- Trust by directing it to provide passage at point “B” especially when the same appears to be already functional at the spot. The subject passage at point “B” does not frustrate or cause obstruction in implementation of the scheme of the Trust. That apart, the plea now sought to be raised that the passage at point “A” has already been provided, is purely a question of fact which ought to have been raised by the appellant before the learned courts below. In the absence of any such plea taken by them before the courts below, the same can not be allowed to be agitated for the first time in this RSA. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Dismissed. May 12, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE