IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 3100 of 2006. Date of Decision: 29th January, 2008... Ajit Singh ....Petitioner through Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate Versus Registrar, Punjab & Haryana High Court & Ors. ...Respondent through Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate, for respondent NO.3. 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? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) In this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the High Court to hold an inquiry into the complaint dated 10.8.2004 (Annexure P-4) made by the petitioner. Vide the aforementioned complaint, the petitioner has alleged that when he along with his two witnesses appeared and deposed before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran, their statements were tampered with by the Stenographer/Judgment Writer who recorded the same under dictation given by the learned Presiding Officer. Though, it is quite possible that having regard to the gravity of the allegations contained in the complaint, some inquiry might have been held by now, however, in the absence of any such report on record, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this revision petition with a direction to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar to depute a Judicial Officer to hold a fact finding inquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner and if any substance is found therein, to take further action, in accordance with law. The needful shall be done within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. January 29, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE