IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2517 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 23, 2010 Ram Phal. …Petitioner Versus Sehdev and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate, for the respondents. **** Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.03.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, whereby application seeking amendment in the plaint incorporating the plea of possession was allowed. C.R. No.2517 of 2009 Undisputedly, plaintiffs initially filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, in compliance with the order passed by the learned Executing Magistrate, under Section 145 Cr.P.C., possession was delivered to defendant No.3, hence, plaintiffs have moved an application seeking amendment in the plaint to add the relief for possession, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court. Undisputedly, possession was handed over to defendant No.3 in a proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., hence, in the opinion of this Court, plaintiffs have every right to ask for the relief for possession, which was rightly allowed by the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since order passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is under challenge before the Additional Sessions Judge, hence, amendment should not have been allowed. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. Scope and object of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is different. Proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. or revision therefrom are liable to be dropped in view of the pendency of civil suit pending between the parties. Dismissed. November 23, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 2 C.R. No.2517 of 2009 3