IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3756 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: December 10, 2008 Harbhajan Kaur and another …Petitioners Versus Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.K. Sibal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. B.S. Dhillon, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 2. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. The prayer made by the petitioners in the instant petition is for issuance of direction to the Jalandhar Improvement Trust- respondent No. 1 to give possession, sanction the building plans and C.W.P. No. 3756 of 2007 to complete all other formalities enabling them to use the plot which is stated to have been allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners on 12.2.1988 (P-1). 2. From the perusal of the allotment letter it is evident that the plot was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in pursuance to a decree dated 12.2.1988, passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Jalandhar, in Civil Suit No. 55 of 1988 (Ravinder Kumar v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar). However, the aforementioned decree was challenged by the Improvement Trust by filing a civil suit. The judgment and decree dated 25.1.1996, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalandhar, had set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Jalandhar, passed on 12.2.1988. However, the view taken by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) in her judgment and decree dated 25.1.1996 was set aside in appeal, bearing RCA No. 18 of 1996 (Harbhajan Kaur and another v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and others), which was filed by the petitioners, by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree, dated 2.12.1999 (P-6). Against the aforementioned judgment and decree, dated 2.12.1999, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, further appeal bearing R.S.A. No. 3673 of 2000 has been filed, which is pending after admission in this Court. 3. In the written statement it has been categorically pointed out that in pursuance to the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, dated 2.12.1999 (P-6), the 2 C.W.P. No. 3756 of 2007 petitioners have also filed execution, which is evident from the perusal of para 6 of the preliminary objections raised in the counter affidavit. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that no parallel proceedings by filing the instant petition could have been initiated once the matter is pending before the Civil Courts. The judgment and decree, dated 2.12.1999 (P-6) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, is under challenge in R.S.A. No. 3673 of 2000, which has been admitted and is pending before this Court. Likewise, the petitioners have taken out execution in respect of the judgment and decree dated 2.12.1999. Once the aforementioned facts are clear then no petition would be competent and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to pursue the execution proceedings. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 10, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3