RSA No. 3528 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3528 of 2006 Date of Decision: 19.8.2009 Parma and others ......Appellants Versus Barfi and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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: Shri Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Amit Jain, Advocate and Shri Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby their suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the judgment and decree dated 1.5.1973 as not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs, was dismissed. The plaintiffs have challenged the said decree on the ground that Chandi, who has suffered the aforesaid decree has already died on 20.12.1971. Both the Courts have found that the plaintiffs have forged the death certificate in connivance with Badri, Lambardar. Naib Tehsildar has conducted an inquiry and in his report Exhibit D.22, has reported that Chandi died on 21.2.1981. The Collector Faridabad terminated the services RSA No. 3528 of 2006 (2) of Badri Lambardar vide order dated 15.2.1996, Exhibit D.3. The said order has been affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner and in revision by the Financial Commissioner. Even the writ petition filed by Badri was also dismissed by this Court. In view of the said fact, the entire basis of the of the suit of the plaintiffs that Chandi was not alive on the date of decree, is not sustainable. Concurrent findings of fact have been returned by the Courts below on the basis of appreciation of evidence. It could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded or that the findings recorded give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 18.8.2009 ds