IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2300 of 2009 Date of decision:27.04.2009 Devi Dayal ...Petitioner versus Nirmla Rani and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. K.K.Garg, 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against an order dismissing an application for transfer of proceedings pending before the Appellate Authority, Barnala, on the ground that the Judicial Officer had made an observation in the course of proceedings that the appeal be dismissed if her compromise terms were not fully complied with. I find no justification for transfer of proceedings only for the reason that the Authority before whom the proceedings were pending had made some observations about the ultimate mode of disposal that she might adopt. Indeed this was a case where the parties have admittedly compromised the matter and the compromise has also been filed in the Court by way of statement by the respective parties. As per the compromise terms, Local Commissioner was appointed who was to replace the bricks at the Civil Revision No.2300 of 2009 - 2 - ceiling and in the manner of execution of the work, there was some problems expressed by the landlord. According to him, the Commissioner had exceeded the brief and did not conform to the warrant of commission. 2. The Appellate Authority may consider, in view of the objections taken about the conduct of the Local Commissioner to appoint another Commissioner and the cost of such Commissioner shall be borne by the landlord. Subject to this liberty given to the revision petitioner landlord to have another Local Commissioner appointed, the petition for transfer of proceedings stands dismissed. 3. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.04.2009 sanjeev