IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.320 of 2011 Date of decision : September 7, 2011 J.K. Duggal and others …Petitioners. Versus Harish Kumar Sharma …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Ms Seema Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioners, who are plaintiffs in a suit filed in the Court of Civil Judge, are aggrieved by order dated 28th July, 2011 of learned trial Court, whereby prayer of the defendant-respondent, for making an application, under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for placing on record certain documents, has been allowed and defendant permitted to move such application, by the next date, i.e. 25th August, 2011. 3. Grievance of the petitioners is that once they had closed their evidence on 28th July, 2011, trial Court, as per procedure, ought to have listed the matter for evidence of the defendant-respondent. 4. Learned trial Court has simply allowed the request of the defendant, for making an application and Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… this order is innocuous. Of course, matter has been delayed by one month, because of the defendant having been permitted to file an application, but beyond that the order has caused no prejudice to the petitioners. Rather, the filing of the present petition would cause more delay in the disposal of the suit. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 7, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J