Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) BOTH these present second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been filed by the appellant -defendant -RSEB against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in respective Civil First Appeal Nos. 19/1984 "RSEB Vs. Darshna Devi" and No. 15/1984 "RSEB Vs. Korchand" by which, he affirmed the judgments and decrees dated 07.08.1984 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hanumangarh respectively in Civil Original Suit Nos. 19/1983 "Darshna Devi Vs. RSEB" and No. 186/1983 "Korchand Vs. RSEB" in the suits for permanent injunction which were decreed in favour of the respective plaintiffs.
(2.) THE Courts below have decreed the respective suits of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the appellant -RSEB, a public body. It was observed that the land, earlier allotted to the Mandi Samiti, was never taken in possession by the Mandi Samiti and the same was in valid possession of the plaintiffs; and the transformer of the appellant -RSEB, which was situated on the eastern side of the said plot of the plaintiff was of the RSEB but their claim on a plot of land admeasuring 100 ft. x 150 ft. for construction of entire Sub -Station but the said plot was never allotted to RSEB by the Mandi Samiti and, therefore, under the garb of purported allotment, they (RSEB) were seeking to encroach upon the land of the plaintiffs. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned First Appellate Court in the impugned order dated 23.10.1992, while deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs and affirming trial court's findings are quoted herein below for ready reference: -
(3.) WHILE admitting both these appeals, the co -ordinate Bench of this Court had framed the following substantial questions of law on 06.05.1993 which are quoted herein below for ready reference: - "(1) Whether the finding about possession of the plaintiff on the disputed property arrived by the two courts below is vitiated by excluding the certified copy of the Commissioner's report, forming part of Civil Suit No. 63/1979 - Gangasingh v. R.S.E.B., produced in the present suit, from consideration, on the ground that the Commissioner has not been produced? (2) Whether a document (Ex. A/4, A/5 & A/6) forming part of the earlier judicial proceedings is a public document and is proved by mere production of a certified copy thereof -;