C.R No. 2942 of 2009 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 2942 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : January 22, 2010 Dalip Kumar and another, ...... Petitioner (s) v. Kumer Singh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Anil Ksheterpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 (Oral) This petition has been filed against the judgments of the Courts below dismissing the application of the petitioners for temporary injunction praying that the respondents be restrained from obstructing their access to the alleged street between the houses of the parties. Both the Courts below have found that the property of the petitioners is comprised in Khasra No.787 while that of the respondents is comprised in Khasra No.788, and as per ak-shajra of the village, there is no C.R No. 2942 of 2009 (O&M) ::2:: passage between these two khasra numbers. Both the Courts below have further found that a part of the passage is public street while another part is the private street of the respondents which they have left for their land. On 15.1.2010, counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have no access to their house. Consequently, Shri Ivneet Singh Pabla, Advocate of this Court was appointed as Local Commissioner who has submitted his report dated 18.1.2010. No objections have been filed thereto. The Local Commissioner has also placed on record site plan, Annexure-B. In his report, the Local Commissioner has mentioned that there are two spots from where the petitioners can have access to the public street. Both have been marked in green colour in the site plan, Annexure B. Counsel for the petitioners has, however, argued that since admittedly there is a passage on the site in dispute, if access is denied to the petitioners it would cause much greater prejudice to them than would be caused to the respondents in case access was allowed to them. He further states that by way of an interim measure, access should be continued to the petitioners. In view of the findings of the Courts below that as per the prima facie evidence available at this stage, the site in dispute falls in Khasra No.788 which belongs to the respondents, and as per the report of the Local Commissioner that the petitioners can have access to the public street through alternative spots, I have not been persuaded to hold that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Consequently, this petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending C.R No. 2942 of 2009 (O&M) ::3:: civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 22, 2010. JUDGE `kk'