CR No.4937 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No. 4937 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.08.2010 Harinder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Surjit Singh and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Alok Singh, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that vide impugned order dated 16.7.2010, evidence of the plaintiff was closed by the trial Court, having recorded that no PW is present on 16.7.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that as per Annexure P-1, plaintiff has requested the trial Court to summon the Clerk of Sub Registrar, Sunam, along with the original record for the date fixed i.e. 29.7.2010. On the application of the plaintiff – petitioner, the trial Court vide order dated 19.7.2010 directed the plaintiff to deposit diet money for the witness to be CR No.4937 of 2010 2 summoned. He further states that diet money of Rs.225/- as directed by the trial Court vide order dated 19.7.2010 was deposited on 20.7.2010. He further states while referring to Annexure P-3 that the trial Court vide order dated 20.7.2010 issued summons to the witness i.e. Clerk of Sub Registrar, Sunam, directing him to appear before the Court alongwith original record on 29.7.2010. He states that once witness is summoned for 29.7.2010, there was no occasion for the trial Court to pass the order on 16.7.2010. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I find that on 19.7.2010 , plaintiff – petitioner has moved an application before the trial Court to summon Clerk of Sub Registrar, Sunam along with the original record mentioned therein. The trial Court on 19.7.2010 directed the plaintiff to deposit diet money for the witness to be summoned. I further find from Annexure P-2 that plaintiff has deposited diet money on 20.7.2010 in compliance with the order dated 19.7.2010. From the perusal of Annexure P-3, I find that witness was summoned for 29.7.2010. It seems that due to some mistake impugned order dated 16.7.2010 was passed. Witness was summoned for 29.7.2010. It was not within the jurisdiction of the trial Court to close the evidence of the plaintiff – petitioner on 16.7.2010 prior to 29.7.2010 i.e. the date fixed for which the witness was summoned. In view of this, order impugned dated 16.7.2010 is hereby quashed. The trial Court is directed to fix a date for the examination of witness mentioned in Annexure P-1 and to issue summons to the witness mentioned in Annexure P-1 for the next date. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms without notice to the respondent. However, it is made clear that if respondent has any grievance CR No.4937 of 2010 3 against this order, he is at liberty to move this Court with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 09.08.2010 sk.