R.S.A No. 2889 of 2009 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2889 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : November 05, 2009 Municipal Council Rohtak ...... Appellant (s) v. Balraj and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mrs. Manisha Lamba, Advocate for the appellant. *** 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 appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 had filed a suit claiming mandatory injunction against the appellant and respondents No.2 to 4 (defendants) to reconstruct the property which had been demolished, and for permanent injunction restraining them from further demolishing the property in dispute. The trial Court, holding that respondent No.1 had not been able to prove that the construction was authorized, dismissed the suit. However, R.S.A No. 2889 of 2009 (O&M) ::2:: the lower appellate Court found that no notice of any type was given by the appellant to respondent No.1 before the action of demolition was taken, and consequently, issued permanent injunction in favour of respondent No.1 restraining the appellant and respondents No.2 to 4 from further undertaking any demolition without following any due process of law. The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.1.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge Rohtak is sustainable in the eyes of law ? ii) Whether the finding returned by the learned lower appellate Court is sustainable ? iii) Whether onus to prove the case was on respondent No.1/plaintiff or appellant/defendant ? iv) Whether a correct finding regarding admission has been returned by the learned lower appellate Court ?” Counsel for the appellant is not in a position to deny that in fact no notice was served upon respondent No.1 before action of demolition was taken by the appellant. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the judgment of the lower appellate Court. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 05, 2009. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 2889 of 2009 (O&M) ::3::