✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 26 Mar 2010

Sangeeta Sharma v. J.S.Narula & Anr.

CR No. 1989 of 2010AJAY TEWARI

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

Consequently, this petition is dismissed

Provisions considered

Judgment

Operative part

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) . . . This petition has been filed against the order of the learned Trial Court wherein an application for appointing Local Commissioner filed by the respondent-defendant has been allowed. The petitioner had filed the suit for injuncting the respondent from restricting the user from a staircase situated in the common building. The case of the respondent was that the staircase, which is claimed by the petitioner, was his exclusive staircase and that there was another common staircase which was being used by the petitioner and the other shopkeepers of the building. By consent of the parties, one Mr.J.S.Panchal, was appointed as Local Commissioner. He came and gave a report that the staircase in question were the exclusive staircase of the respondent and that the petitioner was also using them. He, however, did not give any finding regarding the existence of any other alleged common staircase. After considering the application filed by the respondent the Trial Court has CR No.1989 of 2010 ::2:: again directed the same Local Commissioner to submit a report about the existence or otherwise of the alleged common stairs. I find no material irregularity in the order of the learned Trial Court so as to render it liable for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. March 26, 2010 Sukhpreet (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, this petition is dismissed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 227.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 26 Mar 2010. The bench was AJAY TEWARI.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CR No. 1989 of 2010). ← Search more judgments