IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Review Petition No. 4 of 2008. Judgement reserved on: Date of decision: 27.3.2008. Beni Parsad ….. Petitioner. Vs. Smt. Durga Devi …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The applicant- respondent-defendant has filed this review petition for reviewing the judgement dated 27.12.2007 of this court in RSA No. 276/96. The review has been sought on the grounds that non-applicant-appellant- plaintiff is estopped from seeking any relief against the applicant. There is no independent, reliable and cogent evidence on record on the basis of which meagre encroachment can be found. The demarcation report, dated 23.9.1990, of the Local Commissioner and the demarcation report dated 27.7.1990 brought on record by the applicant prove that the area involved is quite small and the applicant has raised construction Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… on the spot. The findings of facts were recorded by the first appellate court, which could not have been interfered with in second appeal. The grounds of appeal, which were raised by the applicant before the learned Additional District Judge were required to be considered by this Court. The demarcation reports are not in conformity with the guidelines laid down for carrying out the demarcation. The case was required to be remanded back to consider whether the relief of payment of amount of compensation instead of passing a decree for possession would be just, equitable and proper. The non-applicant and her predecessor have allowed the construction. The comparative loss is of the applicant. The grounds on which the appeal has been allowed by this court were not specifically raised in the grounds of appeal nor those are valid. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. The review can be allowed if the applicant is in a position to point out any error apparent on the face of record. The applicant is seeking review on such grounds which require re-appreciation of evidence, which is not the scope of review. No error apparent on the face of record from the judgement has been pointed out. The two courts below found the applicant to be encroacher on the land in question. 4. No case for review is made out. Hence, the review petition is dismissed. March 27, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.