IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Review No.82 of 2010 Date of decision : April 7, 2011 Attar Singh …Petitioner. Versus Saroop Singh and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.C. Verma, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that when an application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the same amendments, as were sought to be made in the subsequent application, decided vide order dated 27th November, 2009, had been dismissed, learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the subsequent application for amendment and, therefore, this Court’s order dated 18th June, 2010, setting aside the order dated 27th November, 2009 and partly allowing the amendment, is required to be reviewed. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Earlier application, which was dismissed in the year 2007, sought to make an amendment that some judgment and decree, passed in earlier suit No.92 of 1995, was not binding upon the plaintiff. In the application, that was disposed of vide order dated 27th November, 2009, amendment sought was different, as is clear from order dated 27th November, 2009 of the trial Court, as also order dated 18th June, 2010 of this Court, passed in revision. Hence, the present petition for review is dismissed. Petition stands disposed of. April 7, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J