Civil Revision No.2151 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2151 of 2007 & Civil Revision No.2170 of 2007 Date of Decision:18.04.2009 Hans Raj ....petitioner versus Nachattar Singh & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Vikas Mehsempuri,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Tejinder Joshi, Advocate for the respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This judgment shall dispose of two revision petitions i.e. Civil Revision No.2151 of 2007 and Civil Revision No.2170 of 2007. Civil Revision No.2151 of 2007 has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment/order of the Lower Appellate Court whereby appeal filed by the defendant-respondents against the order dated 29.04.2006 passed by Civil Judge(Sr.Division), Sangrur, allowing application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff-petitioner has been accepted and application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 restraining the defendant/respondents from interfering and closing the outlet of water from the kitchen of the house of the petitioner during the pendency of the suit has been dismissed. It is relevant to point out here that in another suit filed by the petitioner against the respondents, the dispute is with regard to the closing Civil Revision No.2151 of 2007 2 of the back door of the house of the plaintiff. Civil Revision No.2170 of 2007 arises out of the second suit filed by the petitioner. In that suit also the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC which was allowed by the trial Court on 29.04.2006 restraining the defendants from closing door of the house of the petitioner. However, on an appeal filed by the defendants the order of the trial Court was set aside and application for ad interim injunction was dismissed. The prayer in revision petition is for restraining the defendant from blocking the door. Both these revisions were heard together. The dispute between the parties basically is concerning the fact that the petitioner does not have an outlet for the water from his Kitchen except for the opening in the street in dispute and the back door of the petitioner opens in the street in dispute. Noticing these facts, this Court vide order dated 22.07.2008 appointed Local Commissioner who submitted his report dated 17.09.2008 stating therein that there was no other outlet for kitchen water of the petitioner except one in dispute which was found to be closed at the time of inspection. The Local Commissioner also found that the back door of the petitioner opening in the street in dispute has been closed by bricks. It is not in dispute that the main suits are pending in the trial Court and the same are at the evidence stage. Since there is no other water outlet for drainage of water from the kitchen of the petitioner, it will be equitable that during the pendency of this suit the petitioner is allowed to use the existing water outlet as noticed by the Local Commissioner. It is further ordered that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the door which was opened by the petitioner in the street in dispute and which is lying closed as reported by the Local Commissioner. With these observations, both the revisions stand disposed Civil Revision No.2151 of 2007 3 of. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the trial Court is directed to decide the suits, expeditiously. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 18.04.2009 neenu