IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4402 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 10, 2010 Naranjan Singh and others …Petitioners Versus Kishan Kaur and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. J.S. Puri, Advocate for Mr. Gurdev Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Padam K. Jain, Advocate, for the respondents Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sultanpur Lodhi, thereby rejecting the application of the defendants – petitioners for appointment of Local C.R. No. 4402 of 2009 Commissioner for demarcation of the property in possession of the defendants. Mr. J.S. Puri, Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in a suit for partition, all the co-sharers are necessary party and they have not been impleaded, hence, suit is not maintainable. He further states that issue No.5 has already been framed about the maintainability of the suit and petitioner shall be at liberty to argue and press issue No.5. Mr. J.S. Puri further states that the petitioners are little apprehensive that their construction shall be demolished in the event of passing of the partition preliminary decree. Mr. Puri fairly stated that application for appointment of Commissioner to demarcate the property over which defendants-petitioners’ construction are standing shall be pressed at the time of preparation of the final decree so that their construction can be saved and that portion can be allotted in favour of the defendants. Mr. Padam K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents states that no revision is maintainable against the rejection of the application seeking appointment of the Commissioner. Mr. Jain fairly stated that all the parties shall be at liberty to lead evidence and to argue the case on the issues framed by the Court. Mr. Jain further stated that question of demarcation shall come only when preliminary decree is passed and proceedings for final decree are pending. 2 C.R. No. 4402 of 2009 Having considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, it is observed that the petitioners – defendants shall be at liberty to move and press the application for appointment of Commissioner to demarcate their construction and share during the pendency of the final decree proceedings. Both the parties shall be at liberty to lead evidence and to argue the points on the issue framed by the learned Trial Court. Petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. September 10, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3