RSA No. 2024 of 2005 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2024 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 01, 2009 Ram Singh ...... Appellant Versus Ram Gian and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Arun Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant that the wall between the properties of the appellant and the respondents is owned exclusively by him and, therefore, seeking an injunction against the respondents from installing girders and ballas on the wall. The following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether it was incumbent upon the learned trial court to have appointed a local commissioner in terms of provisions of Order 26 rule 9 CPC when the dispute in the case was regarding demarcation which required identification of the suit property? b) Whether the learned courts below can ignore the demarcation report Ex.P-1 which clearly shows that the disputed wall falls in the khasra number owned by the RSA No. 2024 of 2005 (O&M) 2 appellant. c) Whether the learned courts below can rely upon compromise which clearly shows that the wall in fact belongs to appellant but the same is claimed to be joint only on the basis of the said compromise? d) Whether the learned courts below can pass the judgments and decree contrary to the pleadings of the parties and evidence that has come on record? e) Whether the findings of the learned courts below on the issues are contrary to law, equity, justice, good conscience and natural justice? It would be seen that all the above mentioned questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of the evidence so as to render them perverse. However, there is one facet on which I find merit in the contention of learned counsel. Learned counsel has argued that even if it is presumed (though not admitted) that the wall was joint yet the respondents could not put any load on it more than half the thickness of the joint wall. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to controvert this assertion. Consequently this appeal is dismissed with a clarification that even though the wall between the properties is joint yet the parties would be able to use only half the thickness of the wall to put any additional load on their respective sides. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE August 24, 2009 sunita