IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A No. 1524 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 18.4.2009. Satpal .... Appellant. Versus Multan and Others. .... Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. Present:- Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the appellant. Hemant Gupta, J. Plaintiff has preferred this regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed against the defendants restraining them for interfering in the use of public street was dismissed. The stand of the defendants was that it was a private street. Both the parties have led oral evidence. On the basis of oral evidence, both the Courts below gave a concurrent finding of fact that it is a private street. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to argue that all streets with in abadi of a Panchayat area are public streets and it is for the defendants to prove that the street is private street. Such plea having been proved only by leading oral evidence, therefore the finding recorded that the street is a private street is not sustainable. I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Primarily, onus is on the plaintiff to prove that it is a public street. Even otherwise both the parties have led oral evidence on the issue whether the street is public or private street. On appreciation of such R.S.A No. 1524 of 2009 -2- evidence, the finding returned is that street is private. Such finding of fact, returned on the basis of appreciation of oral evidence, cannot be disputed in second appeal. I do not find any merit in the present petition as no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Dismissed. April 18, 2009 (Hemant Gupta) tripti Judge