IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.136 of 2006 Date of decision : July 27, 2010 Munshi Ram and others …Petitioners. Versus Parkash Chand and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioners have instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants- respondents from causing any interference in their possession over land bearing Khasra Nos. 143 and 145. They also moved an application for temporary injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants-respondents from interfering in the aforesaid two khasra numbers, during the pendency of the suit. Learned trial Court allowed the application. On appeal filed by the defendants-respondents, order of the trial Court has been set aside and the application for temporary injunction dismissed. 2. Defendants-respondents, in their written statement, as also in their reply to the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… stated that they had not been causing any interference in the land comprised in Khasra Nos.143 and 145, but they claimed they had a marked passage through those Khasra numbers, with respect to which earlier an application, under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had been filed before the Executive Magistrate and in the course of those proceedings, the plaintiffs-petitioners conceded the existence of passage and also removed the obstruction caused by them. It is mainly because of this alleged admission in the proceedings, under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the learned District Judge has accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Plaintiffs-petitioners admit, even in the present petition, that there had been a compromise of the type, as noticed by the learned District Judge in the impugned order, though it is stated that the said compromise was the result of pressure exerted upon them by the Executive Magistrate. No such plea has been raised by the plaintiffs-petitioners in the pleadings. It is only in the present petition that they have come out with the plea of exertion of pressure by the Executive Magistrate. …3… 5. In view of the abovestated position, impugned order does not call for any interference. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. July 27, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J