Civil Revision No. 747 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 747 of 2007 Date of Decision: 27.4.2009 Ambinder Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Jeet Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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? Present: Shri V.K. Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 26.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal filed by the defendants against the order granting ad- interim injunction by the trial Court, was allowed. The plaintiff asserts that the land measuring 4 kanals was sold by the defendants vide sale deed dated 22.12.1992 and the possession delivered. The dispute is regarding a portion shown red in colour, which the plaintiff claims was left as a passage to reach the land purchased. Since the defendants were not permitting the plaintiff to use the alleged passage, the present suit for injunction was filed along with the application for ad-interim injunction. In reply, the defendants have admitted the sale of land Civil Revision No. 747 of 2007 (2) measuring 4 kanals, but the defendants denied existence of any passage, as claimed by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court allowed the application for ad-interim injunction holding that the recital in sale deed shows that the land was sold with the passage. In appeal by the defendants, the learned Additional District Judge, set aside the order passed by the trial Court relying upon the report of the Local Commissioner. As per the Local Commissioner there exist construction and trees at the place, which is claimed by the plaintiff as a passage. Though the plaintiff filed objections to the said report, but the learned Additional District Judge, found that prima-facie, report of the Local Commissioner has to be accepted as correct, subject to evidence, which may be led by the parties on merits before the learned trial Court. The Local Commissioner appointed by the Court has reported that the area of passage in fact contains construction and trees. For the purposes of deciding ad-interim application, such report is relevant. On the basis of such report, the learned first Appellate Court has declined injunction. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material illegality in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 27.4.2009 ds