RSA No.841 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.841 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 26.04.2010 Phuman Singh and another .. Appellants Versus Harbans Lal and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.O.P.Kamboj, Advocate for the appellants. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) . . . This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering over the land in dispute. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the appellants were not be able to establish their possession over the land in dispute and consequently, dismissed the same. The main ground which weighed with the Courts below was that the appellant could not prove how he came into possession of the land, since prior to the date of his possession as recorded in the Revenue Record, the respondents were shown in possession. It was also not disputed that the land was owned by the Government. Both the Courts below took into consideration that no order of eviction was shown to have been passed against the respondents. The following questions have been proposed:- (i) Whether both the ld. Lower Courts have wrongly interpreted the documents i.e. Exh.P/1 to P/5 i.e. Jamabandis and khasra Girdawaris and Exh. PZ the RSA No.841 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: report of the Distt. Collector Ferozpur regarding the forged Jamabandis produced by the defendants in the present suit ? (ii) Whether both the courts below have failed to discuss and appreciate the evidence on the record before passing the impugned judgment and decrees ? (iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants have been dismissed on flimsy grounds ? (iv) Whether the impugned judgment and decree dt.14.11.2009 passed by Addl. District Judge Ferozepur and the impugned judgment decree dated 11.1.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Ferozepur, are sustainable in the eyes of law ? (vi) Whether arbitrariness is not writ large in the present case ? It would be seen that all the five questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC ate Court recorded thereon but has. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main appeal has been decided, the stay application as well as the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, shall dispose of accordingly. April 26, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE