IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.115 of 2009 Date of decision : October 6, 2010 Nand Lal …Petitioner. Versus Tej Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Ms Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Respondent is not present despite service. 2. Petitioner, who has filed a suit in the trial Court, is aggrieved by order dated 24th May, 2008 of the trial Court, by which his application for placing on record copy of a Tatima has been dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel, representing the petitioner. 4. One of the grounds, on which the application has been rejected, is that the Tatima, which is sought to be proved, is part of a demarcation report, which has been set aside by the superior revenue authorities and, therefore, it has got no relevance. Another ground is that earlier also, in the year 2007, a similar application had been moved, which was rejected, vide order dated 31st December, 2007. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 5. In view of the above reasoning given by the trial Court, I see no reason for interfering with the impugned order. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. October 6, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J