IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4140 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 10, 2010 Smt. Harjit Kaur …Petitioner Versus Smt. Surinderjit 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. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 4 to 6, 8 and 14. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.06.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, thereby dismissing the application of the petitioner – plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. C.R. No. 4140 of 2009 Plaintiff has filed suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land mentioned in the head-note of the plaint. Now, by way of proposed amendment, plaintiff wants to add alternate relief for possession saying that if plaintiff is not found to be in possession, relief of possession may be granted in favour of the plaintiff - petitioner. Both the learned counsel for the parties state that present petition be disposed of with consent in the following terms:- 1) Amendment application moved by the plaintiff shall stand allowed; 2) Plaintiff shall not lead any evidence on the added relief because if plaintiff is found to be owner of the property, relief for possession shall follow; 3) Plaintiff shall pay Rs.20,000/- as costs to the defendant – respondents herein within 10 days from today. With the consent of the parties, present petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms. September 10, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 2