IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RSA.No. 409/2007. Date of Decision :4th April, 2008. Piare Lal. …Appellant. Versus: Amarpur. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for judgment?1 For the appellant: Mr.B.S.Chuhan, Advocate. . For Respondent. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral). CMP(M).No. 636/2007. As per office report dated 2nd April, 2008, the respondents stand served in the application. But they are neither present nor represented by any counsel, hence proceeded ex-parte. For the reasons set out in the application, the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. RSA.No.409/2007.` Amarpur- respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 71/1 of 2004 for permanent prohibitory injunction against Piare Lal- appellant herein and respondents No. 2 to 4 herein as defendants. The said suit was decreed in terms of judgment and decree dated 29th September, 2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. (II), Rohru, District Shimla. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed in terms of the impugned judgment and decree dated 29th March, 2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Shimla, H.P. Thus, the present appeal arises out of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Amarpur is the owner of land comprising of Khata No. 106, Khatauni No. 316 and 317, Khasra Nos. 563, 621 & 616, Kitta 3, land measuring 0-05-37 hectares situated in Chak Chiroti, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). Previously he filed civil suit No. 26/1 of 2000 for possession of the suit land against defendants No. 1 and 2 which was decreed in terms of judgment and decree dated 5th January, 2002 passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, court No.2, Rohru. In the execution proceedings the defendants objections were dismissed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Court No. 1, Rohru on 14th January, 2004 and the possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff on 15th March, 2004. Thereafter the defendants again started interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and consequently the plaintiff filed a fresh suit which is now a subject matter of adjudication. The trial court held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and the defendants were restrained from interfering with his possession. After appreciating the material on record, even the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the possession of the suit land had actually been handed over to the plaintiff by the kanungo on 15th March, 2004. While arriving at its conclusion, the first appellate Court referred to and relied upon the statement of the witnesses, including the defendants’ witnesses. 3 Both the courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff’s possession, pursuant to the decree and execution order passed by the Court required to be protected. The plaintiff has also proved on record documentary evidence to substantiate his plea of ownership and possession. The fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land has been concurrently held by the courts below after careful scrutiny of the material on record. No substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present appeal. There is no perversity or error in the impugned judgment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 4, 2008(R)