IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 136 of 2000 Date of Decision: July 22, 2011 Rajinder Pal ….Petitioner Versus Ravinder Nath and another … 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. O.P.Hoshiarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) I have gone through the record. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/petitioner and the learned Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.09.1993, decreed the suit filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, respondents filed an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, allowed the appeal against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner had filed COCP No.136 of 2000 R.S.A. No. 931 of 1997 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 03.04.1997 has directed the parties to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the said appeal was admitted on 24.03.1998 and the order of status quo is continuing till date. The allegation of the petitioner is that respondents intentionally and deliberately started constructing house and shed over the land in dispute, despite the order of status quo passed by this Court. Respondents in their joint reply, have stated that they have not disobeyed any order passed by this Court. They have further submitted that they are in possession of the property which was in their possession even prior to the filing of the suit and appeal. No new construction has been raised by them. They have specifically stated in their reply that they have not raised any construction on the land in dispute during the pendency of the regular second appeal. The petitioner has not rebutted the averment made by the respondents in their reply. Moreover, no material is produced by the petitioner to show that the respondents have violated the orders of this Court by raising constructions after the status quo order. Present petition stands dismissed and notice served on the respondents stands discharged. 2 COCP No.136 of 2000 July 22, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3