IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2522 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 26, 2010 Maya Devi and another. …Petitioners Versus Meena Kumari 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. A.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.1 **** Alok Singh, J. (Oral) This Court vide order dated 09.08.2010 has passed the following order:- “In the present case, the sole question involved is as to whether the property in question is in dilapidated C.R. No. 2522 of 2010 condition and is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Learned counsel for the tenant argued that the report submitted by the landlord is not proved on record, as person, who has appeared for the Municipal Council, could not prove the same. He further states that the tenant has not produced any expert opinion on the file. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties appearing before me, Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate is appointed as Advocate Commissioner to visit the spot within one week from today with prior notice to the learned counsel for the parties for the purpose. He shall submit his report along with photographs taken from every angle about the condition of the property in dispute, within ten days from today. The Advocate Commissioner shall be paid Rs.25,000/- as fee. Both the parties shall pay fee to the Advocate Commissioner in the ratio of 50-50. List on 26.8.2010. Till the next date of hearing, dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed.” In compliance with the order dated 09.08.2010, Advocate Commissioner after visiting the spot has submitted 2 C.R. No. 2522 of 2010 his report and has observed that building in question is in dilapidated condition and is not fit for human habitation. Both the Courts below have also recorded concurrent finding of fact. In the opinion of this Court, report of the Advocate Commissioner supports the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. In view of the above, I am not inclined to exercise my revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. November 26, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3