COCP No.798 of 1997. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.O.C.P. No. 798 of 1997. Date of Decision: September 08, 2006. Prag Nath Chela Nawa Nath ....Petitioner through Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate Versus Shri Narinder Singla & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act and Section 43 of the Improvement Trust Act alleging, inter-alia, that he had raised some construction over the land of the Improvement Trust which he was directed to demolish within seven days. He filed a civil suit in which ad-interim injunction was sought. Though, the learned trial Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo, however, on an appeal by the Improvement Trust/Municipal Committee, Hansi, the said order was vacated and the application for ad-interim injunction was dismissed. The petitioner preferred Civil Revision No.5102 of 1996 before this Court which came up for hearing on 11.12.1996 and while issuing notice of motion, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo as it was COCP No.798 of 1997. ::-2-:: existing on that day. Alleging that despite telegraphic intimation of the aforementioned interim order to them, the respondents demolished the construction made by the petitioner, this contempt petition has been filed. On 17.11.1998 this Court remitted the case to the Senior most Judicial Officer posted at Hansi to hold “an inquiry into the matter and report as to whether the respondents had an intimation of the order passed by this Court prior to the demolition of the building”. In compliance to the aforementioned order, learned District & Sessions Judge, Hisar has forwarded the inquiry report dated 8.3.2006 submitted by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hansi, who has concluded as follows:- “For the reasons recorded above, I find that the respondents had no intimation of the order passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the Civil Revision No.5102 of 1996 dated 11.12.1997 directing that the status quo be maintained as it exists at the spot, prior to the demolition of the building in dispute”. In view of the above reproduced conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer, I do not deem it appropriate to continue with these proceedings which are accordingly dropped. Rule discharged. September 08, 2006. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE