ANOOP CHITKARA,J. - (1.)Both these Regular Second Appeals were heard along with the connected cases bearing CWP Nos. 654 of 2000, 287 of 2001, 54 of 2019, and FAO No.315 of 2002, which are being decided simultaneously.
(2.)Both these appeals being arisen out of common judgment dated 25.6.2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla are being taken up and decided together by a common judgment.
(3.)The facts apposite to decide the present appeals trace back to a plaint dated 3.11.1991, filed by plaintiff Surekha and her husband Ravinder Prakash against Sudama Ram, who was arraigned as defendant No.1; Director, Town and Country Planning-Defendant No.2; Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla-Defendant No.3; and State of H.P. through its Secretary (Revenue)-defendant No.4, for declaration to the effect that there exist no path through Khasra No.192(355), and for possession of part of Khasra No.189, measuring 20' encroached by defendant No.1 by demolition of the structure raised by him, and for mandatory injunction directing defendants No.2 and 3 to remove the unauthorized construction of defendant No.1, the sanction of which has been obtained illegally, and further for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant No.1 to dig/construct path through Khasra No.192 upon Khasra No189, and directions to defendant No.2 and 3 not to allow/permit any path through Khasra No.192 old (355 new) in front of the house of the plaintiffs.
;