IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1947 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 29.07.2009 Gurdial Kaur and others ......Petitioners VERSUS Lakhwinder Singh ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.N.S.Dhandiwal, Advocate, for therespondent. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This revision petition, preferred by the petitioners-defendants (herein referred as 'the petitioners') is directed against the orders dated 29.01.2009 and 06.03.2009, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga and Additional District Judge, Moga. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that no local commissioner was appointed in this case. However, the copy of the report, which is being placed reliance by the Courts below, is from another case titled as “Lakhwinder Singh vs. Kulwinder Singh” and Kulwinder Singh is not the party to the present suit. Therefore, faced with this situation, both the parties are not averse to the appointment of the fresh Local Commissioner and agreed to remain bound by the report of that local Commissioner with regard to the existence of passage at the spot. In these circumstances, this petition is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. Trial Court is directed to appoint a Revenue Officer, not less than the rank of Tehsildar as Local Commissioner, to visit Civil Revision No.1947 of 2009 (O&M) -2- and report about the existence of the passage if it is passing through the land bearing Khasra Nos.158//6-15-16 and if it approaches the land bearing Khasra Nos.158//3-4-5 in village Manu Ke. However, during the pendency of the application, parties will maintain status quo with regard to the use of the passage as it exists today. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 29.07.2009 mamta-II