Civil Revision No. 695 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 695 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 10, 2010 Gurmit Kaur and another ...... Petitioners Versus Anil Kumar and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.P.K.Gupta , 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 24.09.2008 appointing Halqa Patwari as local commissioner on the application of respondent-plaintiff to report in which khasra number the mobile tower is installed/likely to be installed. The respondent No.1-plaintiff had filed a suit claiming that the petitioners and the respondent No.2 were colluding to erect a mobile tower in his property bearing Khasra No. 445/3. In reply the petitioners and respondent No. 2 took the plea that the mobile tower was to be erected in khasra No. 446/2. Subsequently the petitioners filed another application praying that the local commissioner should also report about the other Civil Revision No. 695 of 2010(O&M) 2 construction made in khasra No. 446/2. By order dated 18.01.2010 learned trial court declined this application on the ground that this was not part of the dispute. Learned counsel has argued that the subsequent order suffers from material irregularity on the ground that would cause serious prejudice to the respondents. In my opinion it cannot be denied that the other construction in Khasra No. 446/2 is not part of the dispute. Hence no error can be found with the order of the learned trial Court declining to give any further direction to the local commissioner. The second argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that under the High Court Rules and Orders, a Halqa Patwari cannot be appointed as local commissioner. I am afraid that this belated challenge to the order (after almost 1 ½ years) cannot be raised, more particularly, since as mentioned above, the petitioners themselves moved an application for seeking further directions to the local commissioner. Consequently this revision is dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 10 , 2010 sunita