IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.399 of 2011 Date of decision : October 18, 2011 Mrs. Chandra Thakur …Petitioner. Versus Smt. Jyoti Mankotia and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) An order, shutting the defence of respondents No.4 and 5, who are defendants in a suit, in the trial Court, was passed by the Civil Court. That order was challenged, by filing a petition in this Court, being CMPMO No.194 of 2011, titled Avinash Chopra versus Smt. Chandra Thakur and others. The said CMPMO was disposed of vide order dated 27th June, 2011. Order of the trial Court was set aside and an opportunity was granted to respondents No.4 and 5 to file written statement and also to lead evidence, for which two opportunities were to be granted by the trial Court, as per order. The said CMPMO was, however, allowed, subject to the payment of costs of `10,000/-. 2. When respondents No.4 and 5 filed written statement, present petitioner, who is plaintiff in the suit, filed an application that costs, in terms of this Court order Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… dated 27th June, 2011, passed in the aforesaid CMPMO No.194 of 2011, having not been paid, written statement could not have been taken on record nor were respondents No.4 and 5 entitled to lead any evidence. That application has been dismissed, vide impugned order dated 1st September, 2011, by accepting the plea of respondents No.4 and 5 that they had deposited the costs, in terms of the aforesaid order dated 27th June, 2011, in the High Court Advocates’ Welfare Fund. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is a matter of common knowledge that whenever costs are awarded by this Court, normally such costs are deposited either with the fund created, for the welfare of the Advocates, by the Bar Council, as per the provisions of Advocates’ Act, or with the Advocates’ Welfare Fund, set up by the High Court Bar Association. Parties are paid the costs, when there is a specific order to that effect. In view of the abovestated position, respondents No.4 and 5 cannot be said to have not complied with the order dated 27th June, 2011, passed in the aforesaid CMPMO No.194 of 2011. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. October 18, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J