IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.25 of 2010 Date of decision : September 10, 2010 Mast Ram …Appellant. Versus Gram Panchayat Deoli and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Suresh Kumar Acharya, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Plaintiff is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24th July, 2009 of the learned District Judge, by which his appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27th December, 2008 of trial Court, dismissing his suit, stands dismissed. 2. Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants- respondents from throwing debris on his land bearing Khasra Nos.1259/1049, 1261/1120 and 1263/1180. Defendants denied the allegation. 3. After trial, finding was returned by the trial Court that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to prove that debris was being thrown on his aforesaid land. Consequently, the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… suit was dismissed. Appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant has also been dismissed. 4. I have heard the leaned counsel for the appellant. 5. No substantial question of law arises. The two Courts below have returned a concurrent finding, based on oral evidence adduced by the parties, that no debris was being thrown upon the land of the plaintiff-appellant by the defendants-respondents. Learned counsel submits that the two Courts below have not appreciated the evidence correctly. There is no force in the submission. Both the Courts below have referred to the evidence adduced by the parties and analysed the same. Thus, there is no substantial question of law involved. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending application, if any, stand disposed of, having become infructuous. September 10, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J