Civil Revision No. 5989 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5989 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.10.2009 Smt. Rama Rani and others ......Petitioners Versus Vijay Kumar .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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? Present: Shri B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 2.9.2009, whereby an application filed by the defendant to reject the affidavits dated 23.4.2008 filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. On the other hand, the defendant has filed a counter claim, claiming partition of the disputed property by metes and bounds. The learned trial Court has framed seven issues, out of Civil Revision No. 5989 of 2009 [2] which issue No. 2 was to the effect “Whether the defendant is entitled to the relief of partition of the suit property by metes and bounds as prayed for?”. The onus to prove such issue was on the defendant. The plaintiff-respondent has filed two affidavits dated 23.4.2008 of Raman Kumar and Surinder Pal Singh, practically on the identical lines to the effect that the disputed property consists of two shops on the ground floor and one hall on the first floor. One shop on the ground floor is with Frontier Cloth House and another shop is with Vijay Cloth Store. The portion on the first floor is having the passage from the backside of the building via staircase which opens in Kucha for Kundhan and that there is no other staircase except the one which is from the backside of the building in the gali. The said affidavits can very well be said to be in rebuttal of issue No. 2. The said affidavits are relatable to issue No. 2 and therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application not to treat the said affidavit in rebuttal to issue No. 2, cannot be said to be untenable. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 15-10-2009 ds