IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No. 600/2005 Reserved on:31.3.2009 Decided on:2.4.2009 Onkar Singh. …Appellant. Versus Chattar Singh and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.No For the Appellant : Mr. Bimal Gupta and Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate for the appellant. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 1.10.2005 passed by the District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in civil appeal No. 46-CA/13 of 2005. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’ for convenience sake) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. He claimed himself co-owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 91/141 min, bearing Khasra No. 266/82 measuring 44 bighas 3 biswas situate in village Beharal, Tehsil Paonta 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Sahib, District Sirmaur to the extent of half share as described in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1998-99. The further case of the plaintiff is that on 19.11.2003, the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’ for convenience sake) allegedly interfered in the suit land and cut some mango trees and of other varieties and tried to construct a road and also ploughed the suit land with the tractor. He approached the police for help, but the police authorities told him to take up the matter in the appropriate court. The defendants contested the suit. Their case was denial of simpliciter. The trial court dismissed the suit on 2.6.2005. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Sirmaur. The learned District Judge, Sirmaur dismissed the appeal on 1.10.2005. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the two courts below ought not to have dismissed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, when the plaintiff-appellant and two witnesses specifically stated that the respondents-defendants uprooted the Mango trees and ploughed the land by means of tractor, simply on the ground that the date of the incident stated by the plaintiff and his witnesses in their depositions was different from the one mentioned in the plaint.” Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 3 The case of the plaintiff, as projected in the plaint, is that the defendants have entered the suit land on 19.11.2003 and have removed mango trees. However, while the plaintiff has appeared as PW-1 he has stated that the trees were cut on 13.11.2003. Thus there is variance in the averments contained in the plaint and the statement made by the plaintiff. PW-2 Sadhu Singh and PW-3 Joginder have also not given the exact date on which the defendants had cut the mango trees. They have only mentioned that it happened in the month of November. It was necessary for the plaintiff to prove the date on which the trees were cut by the defendants. It is also the case of the plaintiff that immediately after the removal of trees by the defendants, the complaint was lodged with the police authorities. The police authorities, in writing, apprised the plaintiff to get the matter settled in the court of law. The plaintiff has not placed this writing on record. DW-1 Chattar Singh has deposed that the suit land was earlier demarcated when the dispute had arisen between the plaintiff and one Sh. Sohan Singh. The order was passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 15.10.2003. The Kanungo had fixed the permanent pillars. DW- 2 Raghuvinder Singh has deposed that the orders were passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and the permanent pillars fixed by the Kanungo were removed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was present at the time when the order was passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 15.10.2003. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate has strongly relied upon Ex. PA and PB which pertain to same khasra number forming part of this suit land. A bare perusal of the judgments reveals that the plaintiff had proved the exact date of interference by the defendant in the suit land. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to prove the exact date of interference by the defendants. 4 Both the learned courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. The findings recorded by both the courts below are based on facts and there is no substantial question of law involved in this Regular Second Appeal. Accordingly, there is no merit in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 2.4. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*