CM No. 28231-CII of 2010 in F.A.O. No. 6484 of 2010 Present Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the appellant-PRTC Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the respondent-claimant. .. Delay of 22 days is prayed to be condoned. It is delay of a very short period, which is not opposed on the other side. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. The delay of 22 days in bringing the appeal is condoned. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 17th, 2011 som CM No.24549-CII of 2010 in F.A.O. No.5598 of 2010 Present Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. M.B.Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, for respondent no.4. Delay of 10 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The miscellaneous application is allowed accordingly. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 17th, 2011 som IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 6484 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 17th, 2011 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another .... Appellants Versus Ishan .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the appellants-PRTC Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the respondent-claimant. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. For orders, see F.A.O. No. 6030 of 2010, Ishan Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 17th, 2011 som