IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6231 of 2008 Date of decision:09.03.2009 Swaran Singh ...Petitioner versus Malkit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Chandi, Advocate for respondent No.1 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against an order of arrest made by the Executing Court on the ground of disobedience for the decree of injunction by the act of the defendant in making encroachment which impacted the decree holder's right. The Executing Court had directed a local Commissioner to inspect the property and obtained a report which referred to at least to two acts of the defendant as constituting wilful disobedience of the decree for injunction; one with reference to construction of staircase at the point near A and two, the placing of a gate at point G. 2. When the revision was taken up for arguments, it was contended by the revision petitioner that the judgment debtor had not done act in defiance of the decree and that he had not made any fresh construction in any portion of the disputed lane. Having regard to the contention made by him, I had directed the learned counsel to Civil Revision No.6231 of 2008 - 2 - get an affidavit from his client to state that he had not made further encroachment after passing of the decree. The learned counsel refers me to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit, which are as follows :- “5. That at point G, there is no door fixed in the street, therefore, there is no question of the door being closed and thereby blocking the street. 6. That there are no stairs at point E rather the stairs or at point A going from the bigger street to the roof of the house of petitioner which are in house of the petitioner.” He has denied that there is any door fixed in the street but states that the door is fixed within his own house and it does not cause obstruction to any portion of the lane. It is again contended by him that the staircase at point A is within the house of the judgment debtor and no portion of it comes within the lane. Having regard to the denial of the existence of any encroachments, I direct as under: (i) The Court below shall direct the lane to be inspected by the revenue authority concerned of the concerned Tehsil to carry out measurement and survey with reference to the field plans and ascertain if there is any encroachment into any portion of the lane as complained of and if there is any such encroachment, the bailiff shall have the power to remove such obstructions. (ii) The cost of the carrying out the work of survey and for removal, if it is found, will be borne initially by the decree holder and if there is any encroachment, the same shall be liable for recovery from the respondent. Civil Revision No.6231 of 2008 - 3 - (iii) The order of arrest already passed is directed to be withdrawn and I am of the view that the extreme penalty of arrest need not be visited on the party who labours under a mistaken impression that there is enough place available for the decree holder to use the lane. He could not be faulted as having committed any disobedience of the directions contained in the decree. 4. The matter is therefore, remitted to the Executing Court below to carry out the directions referred to above. The Civil Revision is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.03.2009 sanjeev