Civil Revision No. 2241 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2241 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 05 , 2010 Municipal Council, Rewari ...... Petitioner Versus Amar Singh ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.M.K.Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against an order whereby the learned Appellate court has allowed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and permitted the respondent-plaintiff to place on record certain jamabandies. Learned Appellate Court has found that these documents would enable the Court to come to a just decision of the case. The respondent had filed a suit claiming the property in dispute on the ground of purchase but was not able to link the said land with his purchase. As mentioned above now he wants to place on record certain jambandies which would, in his opinion, link his purchase with the land in dispute. Learned counsel has argued that even these jamabandies do not prove the allegation of the respondent. In my opinion this argument can well be laid before the Court Civil Revision No. 2241 of 2010(O&M) 2 who is to appreciate the evidentiary value of these jamabandies. Learned counsel has also argued that the stringent conditions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC were not met by the respondent. Be that as it may, it cannot be said that the order of the Appellate Court is beyond his jurisdiction or has been passed with such material irregularity or illegality so as to be liable for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Apart from this the petitioner would also get an opportunity to rebut this evidence. Learned counsel has further argued that the Appellate Court has not even imposed any costs. In my opinion this too can be rectified. Consequently it is further clarified that the plaintiff-respondent would be liable to pay costs of rs.10,000/- to the petitioner by way of a demand draft on the next date of hearing before the Appellate Court. With these observations this petition is dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 05, 2010 sunita