Didar Singh & Another vs Jagir Singh & Another on 22 December, 2008

     IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
                   AT CHANDIGARH

                             RSA No.1435 of 2008
                             Date of decision: December 22, 2008

Didar Singh & another                             ... Appellants

                            Versus

Jagir Singh & another                             ... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present : Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate
          for the appellants.

           Mr. H.N.S. Gill, Advocate
           for the respondents.

                      ***

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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?

AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral)

This appeal has been filed against the concurrent

judgments and decrees of the Lower Appellate Court whereby the

appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the judgment

and decree of the Court below decreeing the suit for permanent

injunction was set aside. What has primarily weighed with the

learned Lower Appellate Court is that the appellants have not

been able to specify the site of the property in dispute.

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that

issue No.4 was to the effect whether the plan placed by the

appellants on record as Ex. P-1 was incorrect and the onus

thereof was on the respondents. Learned counsel for the

respondents did not press this issue and therefore it had to be

held that the site plan placed by the appellants was correct.
RSA No.1435 of 2008 -2-

In my opinion, no infirmity can be found with the

findings of the Lower Appellate Court. Apart from Ex. P-1 the

plaintiffs placed two more site plans on the record i.e. Ex. PW-3/c

and Ex.P4/B. Even though this Court could not normally interfere

with findings of fact yet on the insistence of the learned counsel

for the appellant, I have gone through all the three plans. After

perusal thereof, I feel that the findings of the learned Lower

Appellate Court that the appellants could not fix the site of the

property in dispute cannot be held to be either perverse or that it

could not arise from the material on record.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

December 22, 2008                          (AJAY TEWARI)
sonia                                          JUDGE