Civil Revision No. 1643 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision Nos. 1643 and 1644 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: May 27 , 2010 Gian Singh and another ...... Petitioners Versus Maghar Singh ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.S.S.Rangi and Mr. Jagnahar Singh, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Charan Pal Singh Bagri, Advocate for the respondent. **** 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 order shall dispose of two Civil Revisions bearing Nos. 1643 and 1644 of 2010. Civil Revision No. 1643 of 2010 has been filed against the order of the trial Court declining to appoint a local commissioner whereas Civil Revision No. 1644 of 2010 has been filed against the order closing evidence of the petitioners. The respondent filed a suit for injunction for restraining the petitioners from installing a Gobar Gas Plant on the allegation that the same would emit foul smell and the same was otherwise a source of hindrance. The case of the petitioners on the other hand was that they had Civil Revision No. 1643 of 2010(O&M) 2 constructed the Gobar Gas Plant in their own property, away from the property of the respondent and strictly as per the guidelines of the Punjab Engergy Development Agency (PEDA) and that such Gobar Gas Plants do not emit any foul smell or pose any hazard to anybody. After the respondent led his evidence the petitioner led his evidence and during that evidence examined the person who had constructed the Gobar Gas Plant. After the closure of the evidence the petitioner moved an application for appointment of local commissioner in the form of an expert from the PEDA to come and give the expert opinion on the issues raised by the respondent i.e. whether the Gobar Gas Plant constructed by the petitioner would emit any foul smell or would otherwise be prejudicial to the respondent. The learned trial Court held that it was not justified to appoint a local commissioner since enough evidence had been led in the case. Learned counsel has argued that the opinion of the expert would help the court in coming to a just conclusion of the case. It must be remembered that this application was moved when the case was fixed for arguments. Even otherwise it is not necessary that the court would require an expert in all cases. In the present case both parties have led their evidence and it will not be difficult for the court to come to a right conclusion. In the circumstances both the petitions are dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 27, 2010 sunita