R.S.A No. 3179 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 3179 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : March 15, 2010 Balbir Singh and others, ...... Appellant (s) v. Rajpati and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.K.Chibbar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand Chibbar, 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) C.M No.9482-C of 2008 C.M is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application are permitted to be impleaded as L.Rs of respondent No.7 who is stated to have died on 23.3.2007. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo. of parties. R.S.A No.3179 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the R.S.A No. 3179 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: suit of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 5 for restraining the defendants from using the land in dispute as a cremation ground. The most glaring fact, which is admitted, is that khasra No. 786 has already been officially delineated as a cremation ground and, in fact, this was the ground taken by the plaintiffs in support of their claim for restraining the defendants. Counsel for the appellants has argued that in fact the land in dispute was being used as a cremation ground since time immemorial and that it should be so allowed to use in view of the sentiments of the appellants. In my view, this argument though bona fide cannot be accepted. Once the land designated as a cremation ground has been delineated after keeping in mind the interest of all the villagers, the fact that earlier there was a cremation ground which had been used since time immemorial could not be perpetuated because the very purpose of fixing some other piece of land-which may be otherwise more suitable- would be defeated. The second argument raised by counsel for the appellants is that the ingredients of Section 91 of the CPC have not been made out. In my opinion, the lower appellate Court has rightly held that the suit having been filed in a representative capacity the present is not a case which would not attract the provisions of Section 91 of the C.P.C. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 15, 2010. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 3179 of 2008 (O&M) ::3::