IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2486 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.07.2010 Abha and others .... Petitioners Versus Chander Kali ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Defendants-petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 5.2.2009 passed by Addl. District Judge, Kaithal thereby appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent was allowed and application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC moved in the main suit was allowed, ad interim injunction was issued against the defendants restraining the defendants not to cause hindrance to the flow of water in the water course running through property in dispute. 2. Learned District Judge has observed as under:- “I have given due weightage to the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents but the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are distinguishable in as much as the land involved in the present suit is joint between the parties and one of the joint owners cannot be allowed to suffer because of the C.R. No. 2486 of 2009 2 act of the other in dismantling of the water course which as per report of the Local Commissioner is existing on the spot. The said water course cannot be dismantled till the conclusion of the partition proceedings which have already been initiated by the respondents. Otherwise also till such time the land is actually partitioned, each and every co-sharer has got right on every inch of land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Appellate Court to submit inspection report on the file. He does not dispute that Advocate Commissioner has filed his inspection report mentioning therein that there is a water course running through the property in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that no objections were ever filed against the Advocate Commissioner report. 4. In view of the above, I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned judgment. 5. The petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 21.07.2010 JUDGE reena