Civil Revision No.1047 of 2003 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1047 of 2003 Date of decision: December 15, 2008. Sharwan Kumar Sethi & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. M/s Druckgrafen India Ltd. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 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: None for the petitioners. Shri Anil Kumar Saini, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh whereby an application under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC seeking permission to the respondent-plaintiff to institute the suit as indigent person in forma pauperis has been allowed. The respondent is a company incorporated and registered under Civil Revision No.1047 of 2003 -: 2 :- the Companies Act, 1956. It has filed a suit under Order 37 CPC for the recovery of more than Rs.2 crores against the petitioners. It, however, sought permission to institute the suit as an indigent person on the ground that the assets of the company had already been taken over by the PSIDC under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and thereafter on an application moved by the company under section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Board for Financial & Industrial Reconstruction vide its order dated 29.12.1998 has declared the respondent-company as a sick industrial company. In the light of these facts, the learned civil court vide its impugned order dated 18.12.2002 allowed the respondent-company's application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC and permitted it to institute the recovery suit as an indigent person in forma pauperis. The petitioner-defendants have challenged the aforementioned order through this revision petition. It may be noticed that while admitting this revision petition on 21.7.2002, it was made clear that the proceedings in the suit may continue. No one appeared on behalf of the petitioners on the last date of hearing as well as today. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has also no instructions or knowledge regarding the present status of the suit. Having regard to the nature of the suit, namely, under Order 37 CPC, there is every likelihood that by now either the civil suit has been decided on merits and/or near ripe for final disposal. No change in the circumstances, especially the financial condition of the respondent- company, has been brought on record. In these circumstances, there appears to be no necessity to go into the factual aspect of the matter and rather I Civil Revision No.1047 of 2003 -: 3 :- deem it appropriate to dispose of the revision petition with a clarification that the order under challenge shall cause no prejudice to either of the parties. December 15, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge