IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.410 of 2008 Date of Decision: 11. 11. 2008 Ramesh ...... Appellant Versus Smt.Shakuntla Devi and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 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.Vijay Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr.Ajit Malik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Vikram Punia, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The appellant has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession over the land claimed by him to be part of his bara. Both the Courts have found on fact that the ownership of plaintiff over the plot in question cannot be equated for possession. The appellant had to prove by overt act that the property in dispute was in his exclusive possession to the ouster of every body else including the respondents. RSA No.410 of 2008 -2- Apart from this, at the initial stage a local commissioner was appointed on the application of the appellant. Even the said report casting identification of the property in doubt also does not establish the possession of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the said local commissioner having never been examined by the Court, the said report could not be read into evidence. This argument is fallacious. As rightly held by the lower Appellate Court it was for the appellant to have summoned the local commissioner in case he wanted and to confront him with any mistake. In the circumstances the learned lower Appellate Court, in my opinion, rightly refused to ignore the report of the local commissioner. Learned counsel further argued that the reliance of the lower Appellate Court on the judgment of this Court in LPA No. 759 of 1973 titled as Gram Panchayat Garhi Brahmanan v. Puran Lal and others was completely misplaced since the said judgment having tendered into evidence. Even if this argument of learned counsel for the appellant is accepted what still remains is the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below regarding non-existence of the exclusive possession of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that these findings of fact are so palpably perverse as to be held to be not arising from the material on the record. Consequently this appeal is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 11, 2008 sunita