IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3820 of 2004 Date of Decision : 3.3.2010 Mani Ram and others ....Appellants Versus Savitri and others ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.R.S.Sangwan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is defendants' appeal directed against the judgment of the first Appellate Court dated 4.6.2004 by which the findings recorded by the learned trial Court were reversed. The plaintiff/respondents filed a suit for injunction pleading that there is a wall existing between the houses of the parties and that the defendants/appellants be restrained from claiming it to be their own. The appellants resisted the suit and pleaded that the wall belongs to them and they had only permitted the appellants to use the same. The principal issue i.e., issue No.1 determining the controversy, is extracted below :- “Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit R.S.A.No.3820 of 2004 -2- land and entitled to relief of permanent injunction as claimed for?OPP” The learned trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondents by relying on the report of the Local Commissioner which had been exhibited in some earlier litigation inter se between the parties, but strangely enough without giving any cogent reason ignored the report of the Local Commissioner who was appointed in the instant proceedings. In the considered opinion of this Court the reliance on the report of the Local Commissioner in the earlier suit in preference to the report of the Local Commissioner in the present proceedings without assigning any reason was an error committed by the learned trial Court. The first Appellate Court had reversed the findings by referring to the cross-examination of one of the appellants wherein he had admitted that his wall is separate and distinct from the wall of the respondents. The statement of the appellant who had examined himself as DW3 has also been perused by this Court and it reveals that the finding recorded by the first Appellate Court to the effect that there is a categoric admission of the appellant that his wall is separate cannot be faulted with. In any eventuality, this is purely a finding of fact which has been determined. No substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. 3.3.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss