R.S.A. No. 3752 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 3752 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 20.9.2010 Jeeto & Ors ... Appellants Versus Gurnam Singh & Ors. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Ms. Amandeep Soni, Advocate, for the appellants. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Heard. This is the second appeal preferred by the legal representatives of Sowaran Singh (who had died during the pendency of the suit) against the judgment and decree dated 18.5.2010 passed by Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide which he dismissed their appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 25.3.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gurdaspur, dismissing the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from closing/blocking the entrance shown by letters PO in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint. The plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that he is owner in possession of the house marked as ABCD in the site plan and which is situated within the Abadi (Lal lakir) of the village. He kept entrance to the house towards the eastern side, which has been shown as PO in the red colour in the site R.S.A. No. 3752 of 2010 (O&M) -2- plan and that gate open in the street situated on that side and the same was paved by Gram Panchayat. The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants. In the written statement they denied the contentions raised in the plaint and pleaded that plot in dispute, marked as ABCD, is situated in the middle of the village, which was left for common purposes and was being used by all the inhabitants for marriages, meetings and other functions. The house of the plaintiff is situated on the western side of that plot and the door of his house exists at point JE for the last 20 years. Infact the plaintiffs are threatening to install a gate at point F illegally and forcibly, which will amount to obstruction and nuisance in the use and occupation of the said plot. On the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. Relief." In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-2, Makhan Singh (PW-1) and Joginder Singh (PW-3). On the other hand, defendants examined J.S.Dhanjal Draftswan (DW-1), Gurnam Singh (DW- 2), Mohinder Singh (DW-3) and Bakhshish Singh (DW-4). After going through the evidence, so produced by both the sides, and hearing the counsel on their behalf, issue No.1 was decided against the plaintiffs and resultantly their suit was dismissed. They preferred an appeal against that judgment and decree, which also stands dismissed, vide aforesaid impugned judgment and decree. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that R.S.A. No. 3752 of 2010 (O&M) -3- there is total mis-reading of the evidence by the trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court, as all the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs categorically deposed that a street exists on the eastern side of the house of the plaintiffs and they are having their ingress and egress to that house from that street through a gate installed in the wall situated on that side. Thus, substantial question of law arises:- “whether the finding of the lower Courts is based upon the mis-reading of evidence?” The statements of the witnesses, examined by the plaintiff, were read out by learned counsel for the plaintiffs in the Court. Only appreciation of evidence, in the form of those statements, was done by the trial Court and the Appellate Court, while recording the finding against the plaintiffs. It cannot be said that there is mis-reading of evidence. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. September 20, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge