IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- C. R. No. 3981 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 18.4.2009. Braahamjeet Singh & Ors. .... Petitioners Versus M/s Ambika Forging Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. .... Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. Present:- Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondents. Hemant Gupta, J (Oral). Legal heirs of the plaintiff are aggrieved against the orders passed on application under Oder 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C, in the instant revision petition. The plaintiff has claimed an interim injuction restraining the defendants from closing 33 feet wide passage as shown in the site plan. The learned trial Court dismissed the application holding that in revenue records, there is no mention of the passage. And that, in fact, the respondents are the owners of the khasra numbers of the alleged area of the passage. The said order was affirmed in appeal holding that defendants are in exclussive ownership of the said suit land. It was found that though the Local Commissioner has found passage constructed by the defendants, even then the plaintiff has absolutely no right to use the same, particularly when he has got an alternative passage to reach his land. The revision petition was admitted to final hearing on 4.10.2007 and respondents were restrained from blocking passage in dispute. Such C. R. No. 3981 of 2006 -2- order was passed in presence of learned counsel for the respondents. Since the dispute is in respect of use of passage by the petitioner, and the local commissioner has found passage to be in existance, therefore without examining the question whether such a passage is exclusive property of the defendants, the plaintiff is permitted to use the passage in question during the pendency of the suit. In view of above, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 29.11.2004 is set aside and the plaintiff is permitted to use passage during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expediciously preferrably within a period of one year, after affording three opportunities to lead evidence to each side. April 17, 2009 (Hemant Gupta) tripti Judge