IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3388 of 2007 Date of decision:09.03.2009 Sanjit Singh ...Petitioner versus Sajjan Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate with Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the respondent. 2. Civil Revision No.4156 of 2007 Sajjan Singh ...Petitioner. versus Sanjit Singh ...Respondent Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate with Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for the respondent. 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 two revisions are at the instance of both the defendants and the plaintiff; one against the order of the Appellate Court Civil Revision No.3388 of 2007 - 2 - directing the entire suit claim to be deposited as an condition for setting aside the ex parte decree and another at the instance of the plaintiff where the ex parte decree was allowed to be set aside on payment of costs when his contention was that the ex parte decree ought not to have been set aside at all. 2. There is a legal defence in the written statement relating to the enforceability of the promissory note. Although I find that the Courts below were justified in stating that there was no sufficient reason for the non appearance of the defendant on the date when the case was posted, at the same time I think that there ought to be an opportunity for contesting the case on merits. When the appeal was taken on file, it appears that the Appellate Court had directed the defendant to furnish security for the suit claim which was done by him and that was ultimately directed to superseded by direction for deposit of the entire suit claim. While setting aside the order passed by the lower Appellate Court, I direct the restoration of the condition original by imposed by the Appellate Court and direct that the security already furnished by the defendant shall continue to be intact in the manner provided by law and the decision in the suit will ultimately decide on how the security shall be dealt with. 3. The suit has been instituted in the year 2000 and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that time may be fixed for disposal of the suit. I find the request reasonable and direct that the suit shall be taken up and disposed of within a period Civil Revision No.3388 of 2007 - 3 - of four months and the report to this Court as such regarding disposal. 4. Civil Revisions are disposed of in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.03.2009 sanjeev