Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal And Others vs Bhaiya Ram And Others on 18 January, 2010
Author: Ajay Tewari
Bench: Ajay Tewari
R.S.A No. 3198 of 2006 (O&M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A No. 3198 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of decision : January 18, 2010
Satpal and others,
...... Appellant (s)
v.
Bhaiya Ram and others,
...... Respondent(s)
***
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. V.K.Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. J.K.Malhotra, 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 judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction with consequential relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from encroaching on a gali alleged to be abutting the southern side of the plot of the plaintiffs.
The following questions have been proposed :-
" a) Whether the impugned judgment and decree R.S.A No. 3198 of 2006 (O&M) ::2::
passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat is illegal, suffers from material irregularities and as such is liable to be set aside ?
b) Whether while passing the impugned judgment, the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat erred in law and fact and misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record as also the mandatory and settled proposition of law and as such the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat is liable to be set aside ?
c) Whether the existence of a particular fact if stated by a witness is not denied by putting suggestion in the cross-examination and if the witness is not examined on particular fact, the said fact is deemed to have been admitted by the respondents ?
d) Whether putting up a suggestion to the fact "it is correct we purchased only plots and did not purchase the land of street towards the south" to the witness by the respondents in the cross-examination amounts to admission on the part of the respondents regarding the existence of street towards the south of the plots of the plaintiffs.
e) Whether the sale by common vendor of plots to the plaintiffs and defendants and showing the existence of street in the sale deeds executed in favour of the R.S.A No. 3198 of 2006 (O&M) ::3::
plaintiffs proves existence of street and is binding upon the respondents ?"
It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellants has taken me through the evidence and particularly the statement of PW1 (plaintiff No.1) but he has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC.
Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI ) January 15, 2010. JUDGE `kk'