-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 759 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 15, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 759 of 2011 (O&M). Jagmal and others ... Appellants VERSUS Ram Murti and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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. Balkar Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Defendants-appellants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents against the defendants-appellants for permanent injunction was decreed and the defendants-appellants were restrained from -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 759 of 2011 (O&M). cutting and removing the trees standing in Khasra No.22//8, 22//3/2 owned and possessed by the plaintiffs-respondents, as described/shown in the report of the Local Commissioner dated 31.1.2009 and `Aks Shajra' prepared by him (Local Commissioner). The lower appellate Court also declined the prayer of the defendants-appellants made in the application filed along with the appeal for appointment of a fresh Local Commissioner. It is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the plaintiffs-respondents have been able to prove on record by producing the revenue record that they are owners in possession of the suit land where the trees were standing. The trial Court, on the request of the learned counsel for the parties, had appointed a Local Commissioner vide order dated 17.3.2008. In compliance with this order of the trial Court dated 17.3.2008, a revenue official of the rank of Tehsildar, Jagadhri, had undertaken demarcation of the land in question and found that `Shisham' trees were standing on he Western dole of Khasra No.22//2, 8 and they were within the boundary of said Khasra numbers. `Aks Shajra' was also prepared by the Local Commissioner wherein also ten `Shisham' trees were shown existing in Khasra No.22//8, 3/2. The report of the Local Commissioner is dated 31.1.2009. Although, the defendants-appellants filed objections against the report of the Local Commissioner to the effect that he (Local Commissioner) did not demarcate the land of the defendants and he failed to mention location of their land in the report, but -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 759 of 2011 (O&M). they (defendants) failed to examine the Local Commissioner on the finer points of demarcation by calling him in Court which was incumbent upon the defendants to do so under the provisions of Order 26 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 10 (2) of Order 26 ibid provides that the report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the Court or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation. The failure on the part of the defendants-respondents in not taking any step as contemplated under Order 22 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure had left no option with the trial Court but to accept the report of the Local Commissioner. In this view of the matter, the lower appellate Court was also justified in not allowing the prayer of the defendants-respondents for appointment of a fresh Local Commissioner. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 759 of 2011 (O&M). appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) February 15, 2011. JUDGE ak