IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.330 of 2006 Date of decision : July 27, 2010 Mohinder Singh and another …Petitioners. Versus Padam Singh and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioners-plaintiffs have filed a suit that there exists a path, which is used for access to the plot allotted to them by the Government. Their case is that now a major portion of that path has been merged with another piece of land and changed into a house site, which has been allotted to respondent No.1, impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit. They have filed the suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants- respondents from raising any construction on the site of the claimed path. 3. An application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was also moved. Trial Court Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… ordered maintenance of status quo, pending disposal of the suit. Learned District Judge, in appeal has set aside the order of the trial Court and dismissed the application. Learned District Judge observed that there was a 30 feet wide path available to the petitioners, as stated by the State in reply to an earlier Writ Petition No.239 of 1984, which fact was noticed by the High Court in its order, while disposing of that Civil Writ Petition. 4. This Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of the area to report whether there existed the path claimed by the petitioners and if so what was its width. He was also required to give report whether any alternate path was available. Deputy Commissioner has reported that the width of the claimed path is only 18 inches, meaning thereby that 30 feet wide path, which, as per reply in the earlier writ petition, was in existence, has been merged with the plot that has been carved out and allotted to respondent No.1. Deputy Commissioner’s report is silent about the alleged alternative path. 5. In view of the abovestated position, petition is accepted, impugned order of the District Judge is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. July 27, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J