IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 13, 2011. Civil Revision No.123 of 2011. Vijay Kumar ... Petitioner VERSUS Sanjiv Mahajan and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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 ? Present: Mr. C.M. Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders passed by both the Courts below whereby the prayer made by the plaintiff-petitioner in the application filed by him under Section 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit filed by him for permanent injunction in respect of the shop in his possession as a tenant, insofar as it (prayer) is made to the effect that the defendants be restrained from raising any construction (boundary wall) in the area in the possession of the defendants, was dismissed. -2- Civil Revision No.123 of 2011. I have perused the impugned orders. Both the Courts below have restrained the defendants-respondents from dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioner from the shop in his possession as a tenant forcibly, illegally and except in due course of law. Further, the defendants-respondents have been restrained from closing the 10 feet wide passage in front of all the shops in the area. At the same time, while dealing with the counter-claim raised by the defendants-respondents whereby they alleged that defendant No.2 was in possession of the site marked by letters EFDGHIJ in blue colour (disputed site) as owner having purchased the same along with the other property vide sale deed dated 9.5.2007 and that the plaintiff-petitioner had no concern with the disputed site, both the Courts below restrained the plaintiff-petitioner from interfering in the possession of defendant No.2 over the open space marked as EFDGHIJ shown in blue colour in the site plan filed by the defendants illegally, forcibly and except in due course of law during the pendency of the suit. Both the Courts below have allowed the plaintiff- petitioner to use 10 feet passage leading to his shop. Under the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy involved, I do not see any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below. This revision is, accordingly, hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 13, 2011. JUDGE ak