IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3369 of 2006 Date of decision: April 01, 2008. Rameshwar Dass ...Petitioner(s) v. Ajay Kataria @ Babloo ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 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: Shri O.P. Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.4.2006 passed by the Executing Court-cum-Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala whereby an application moved by the petitioner – decree holder to issue a direction to the local commissioner to follow the advice of the civil engineer in respect of completion and strengthening of the common wall, has been dismissed. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondent – judgment debtors were duly served. No one, however, appears on their behalf and accordingly they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.2.2007. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material on record. The facts may be noticed briefly. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents which was decreed by the learned civil court vide its judgment and decree dated 9.8.2003 with a direction to the respondents “to raise pucca pardi on the side of his house so as to make the total width of wall AB as 18 inches”. The respondents were also held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, if any damages were caused to the portion of the wall on his side. The above stated decree having attained finality, the petitioner filed an execution application. Since the respondent – judgment-debtors took a plea that the wall as directed by the civil court has been constructed and thus, the decree stood satisfied, a local commissioner was appointed to visit the site and report to the court. The local commissioner appears to have reported that the wall AB with more than 18 inch width has been constructed at the spot. The petitioner, however, moved the present application praying the Executing Court to direct the local commissioner to follow the advice of the civil engineer regarding the completion and strengthening of the common wall in question. In other words, the petitioner's case appears to be that the wall has been constructed in an irregular and haphazard manner and does not have desired strength to sustain itself. The petitioners seem to have relied upon the opinion of some experts on the subject, namely, civil engineer. It is in this backdrop that he wanted the local commissioner to proceed in the matter on the basis of advice of the civil engineer. It may be noticed here that the local commissioner appointed by the Executing Court is stated to be an Advocate who obviously is not an expert on the subject. From the photographs (Annexure P-6) placed on record (if the same pertain to the subject wall), it does appear that there already exist holes and gaps in the wall suggesting that it lacks the desired strength. If the wall has been constructed by the respondents first as a formality to comply with the decree, it would serve no body's purpose and may damage the property of either of the parties. In these circumstances, the prayer made by the petitioner that the advice of the civil engineer may be followed, cannot be termed as unreasonable or unfair. For the reasons afore-stated, the impugned order dated 1.4.2006 passed by the Executing Court cannot sustain. The same is accordingly set aside and while allowing the revision petition, the learned Executing Court is directed to decide the petitioner's application afresh, in accordance with law. April 01, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge