C.R. No. 2700 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2700 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.07.2010 Ramesh Kumar Gupta .... Petitioner Versus Manmohan Singh Bajwa and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Mr. V.M. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate for the respondents 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.4.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge, Kapurthala thereby dismissing the appeal against the judgment passed by learned trial Court on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. 2. Learned appellate Court while dismissing the appeal in paragraph 11 has held as under :- “The pleadings reveal that the plaintiff has sought the relief of ad-interim injunction only restraining the appellants from blocking stair-case, ventilators and windows from its use and this is not denied by the appellants. Having regard to the observation made above, the appeal is without merit. The same stands C.R. No. 2700 of 2010 2 dismissed with modification that ventilators, windows forming part of rented premises that the shop/hall will not be interfered or blocked by the appellants during the pendency of the suit but the stair-case shall be used by both the parties and respondent/plaintiff Ramesh Kumar will not create any hindrance from its use to the appellants for approaching to the other part of the house/building. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. However, it is made clear that any observation in this judgment shall have no bearing on the merits of the suit. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent – defendant states that defendant-respondent shall not demolish or block the stair-case, ventilators and windows from its use. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff is not able to point out as to why plaintiff is aggrieved from the order. Both the Courts below have granted ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 4. No illegality or infirmity is pointed out in the impugned judgment. 5. Dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 26.07.2010 JUDGE reena