CR No.1545 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No.1545 of 2009 Date of decision March 20, 2009 Jatinder Kumar and another ....... Petitioners Versus Kulwant Rai ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The revision is against a summary dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation. The appellant who has represented through counsel reported no instructions and the learned Judge while perusing the records found that the appeal has not been filed within time and there was a delay and consequently dismissed the same. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Pradeep Kumar reported in 2004 (4) RCR (Civil)730 to the effect that if there is a delay in filing the appeal it should be taken only as a defective presentation and a summary rejection ought not to be made. Having regard to the fact that the case has been disposed of otherwise than on merits, I dispense with notice to the respondents and set aside the order and remit the matter to the Court below for serving notice to the party to make alternative arrangement in view of the fact that counsel has reported no instructions and put the CR No.1545 of 2009 2 party on notice of the fact that the presentation of the appeal was defective and to explain the same. The Appellate Court shall consider any explanation which may be given and pass appropriate order. 3. The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms remitting the matter to be decided afresh and on consideration in the light of what has been stated above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 20, 2009 archana