R.S.A.No.2051 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2051 of 2007 Date of Decision : 18.08.2009 Sukhbir Singh and others ...Appellants Versus Mahinder ...Respondent 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: Mr. Sumit Shokan, Advocate, for Mr. R.S.Tacoria, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The legal heirs of plaintiff Brij Lal are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for permanent injunction in respect of suit property was dismissed. Both the Courts have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant was inducted as a licencee. It has been further found that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. Such findings have been returned after considering the entire evidence led by the parties. Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are sought to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence. However, it could not be pointed R.S.A.No.2051 of 2007 2 that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be permitted to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence in second appeal. Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 18.8.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE