IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 322 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 19, 2009 Sunil Kumar and others …Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the appellants. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 322, 323 and 325 of 2009, which have been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment and order dated 6.7.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in RFA Nos. 1653, 1678 and 1817 of 1995 [main judgment passed in RFA No. 1645 of 1995 (Ram Narain v. State of Haryana and another) decided on 6.7.2000]. In view of amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by way of incorporation of Section 100A, no intra-court appeal from the date of said amendment, would be maintainable. The provision of Section 100A CPC has been interpreted by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Parshotam Dass v. State of Haryana, LPA No. 322 of 2009 (O&M) 2003 (2) PLR 816 (F.B.). Even otherwise, there is huge delay of 3184 days in LPA No. 322 of 2009 and 3180 days in LPA Nos. 323 & 325 of 2009 respectively, in filing the appeals. The appeals are not maintainable. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) August 19, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2