CWP No. 706 of 1988 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No.706 of 1988 Date of Decision: 14.08.2008 M/s Vijay Industries and others ...... Petitioners Versus The Director of Industries etc. ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. *** Ajay Tewari, J. Respondent No.4 issued an order dated 26.8.1987 for recovery of Rs. 39, 395/- as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner-firm. The petitioners challenged it claiming inter alia, their right to repay the said amount in instalments. The petition came up for hearing on 25.1.1988 when the following order was passed:- “Notice of motion for 14.3.1988. The recovery of loan in lump sum is stayed provided the petitioner continues to pay the instalment.” Counsel for the petitioners states that he has not been able to contact his client to ascertain whether by now the dues have been cleared. I find that this matter had been referred to the Pre Lok Adalat on 13.7.1993 CWP No. 706 of 1988 2 CWP No.706 of 1988 -2- when the following order was passed:- “The representatives of the respondent say that they would be prepared to accept the balance amount of principal/interest in reasonable instalments to be fixed by the Lok Adalat. Let this case be fixed before the Lok Adalat on 31.7.1993. The counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Satish Kumar Mittal be informed of the date, so that he may get instructions in the matter.” A perusal of this order reveals that even on that date the dues had not been cleared. Another period of 15 years has passed. In my opinion, there can be only two possibilities, either the petitioners have paid the amount due from them by now, in which case this petition would be rendered infructuous or in the alternative, that they have not made the payment even in instalments, in which case they will not be entitled to maintain this petition. In any case this petition does not survive and is, therefore, dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE August 14, 2008 sunita