-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 149 of 2010 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 17, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 149 of 2010 (O&M). Dr. Subhash Chander ... Appellant VERSUS Joginder Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Anil Mehta, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents and all other persons on their behalf from entering and using any part of the land as passage in respect of Khasra Nos.39//15/1/2 and 40//11/2 situated in Village Majra, H.B. No.60, tehsil -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 149 of 2010 (O&M). Naraingarh, District Ambala, without the permission and against the consent of the plaintiff, was dismissed by both the Courts below. Smt. Meena Rani wife of plaintiff-appellant Dr.Subhash Chander, was the co-plaintiff. However, during the course of proceedings before the trial Court, Smt. Meena Rani died and the plaintiff-appellant was ordered to be impleaded as her legal representative vide order dated 18.4.2009. I have heard Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Mr.Anil Mehta, Advocate, appearing for the respondents and have gone through the records of the case. The plaintiffs had purchased the land from defendants-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 vide sale deed (Exhibit P.9). It was specifically provided in the sale deed (Exhibit P.9) that the plaintiffs would provide 15 feet passage for use by the defendants. Subsequently, agreement dated 21.5.1997 (Exhibit P.8) was admittedly executed between the plaintiffs and defendants vide which the recital with regard to the providing of 15 feet passage for use by the defendants was reiterated. The defendants use this passage to go to their land which is adjacent to the land of the plaintiffs. Both the Courts below, after perusing the entire evidence led by the parties and hearing their learned counsel, have returned a concurrent finding that since the plaintiffs did not make any effort for declaring the recital in the agreement (Exhibit P.8) and the sale deed (Exhibit P.9) with regard to the use of the 15 feet wide passage by the defendants for going to their land to be void and the defendants -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 149 of 2010 (O&M). had been using this passage even prior to the execution of the sale deed (Exhibit P.9) in favour of the plaintiffs by defendants Nos.1 and 2, this recital, by no stretch of reasoning, can be termed as putting a clog in the right of the enjoyment of the property by the defendants. This finding recorded by both the Courts below is a finding of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that this finding is based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 17, 2011. JUDGE ak