Regular Second Appeal No. 2233 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2233 of 2008 Date of Decision: 2.4.2009 *** Dharam Pal & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Roshan Lal .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the appellants. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is defendants' regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for brevity 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below restraining them from causing any obstruction or raising any construction upon the passage in question. Having heard the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that no question of law warranting admission of appeal would arise. The existence of property of the plaintiff is not in dispute. Both the Courts below on the basis of evidence adduced by the plaintiff coupled with the report Ex.P3 and site plan Ex.P4 prepared by the Local Commissioner, which were never assailed by the appellant-defendants, concurrently held that the passage in question is the only way for the plaintiff for egress and ingress to his property. The defendants not only failed to substantiate their plea that the said passage is their exclusive ownership but also failed to prove their stand that the plaintiff has any other alternative passage for reaching to his property. Rather, it has been concurrently held by the Courts below that the passage in question which is 15 ft. wide and starts from the main street and ends at the property of plaintiff is commonly used by the plaintiff and the Regular Second Appeal No. 2233 of 2008 2 defendants and except that the plaintiff has no other passage to approach to his property and thus concurrently held that the defendants have no authority to obstruct the passage in question and rightly restrained them from causing any encumbrances thereupon to the disadvantage of the plaintiff. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The findings are based on cogent evidence, oral as well as documentary, and it cannot be concluded that the findings are laconic or they lack the support of evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 2,2009 Jiten