IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2499 of 2009 Date of decision:08.05.2009 Sushma Sehgal ...Petitioner versus Lashkar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.P.Vashisht, Advocate, with Mr.G.S.Brar, 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. Having regard to the nature of order that is proposed to be passed, notice to the respondent is dismissed. 2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner complains about the fact that the appeal against the order passed by the Executing Court in a case where objections had been made by a third party to a proceeding and was seeking an adjudication to the inexecutability of the decree under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC has not passed any order in appeal and ceded the entire file to the Executing Court to take further process in execution. According to him, the very purpose of preferring the appeal will be defeated if the Executing Court executes the decree already passed in which the present petitioner was not a party. Civil Revision No.2499 of 2009 - 2 - 3. Making no observation regarding the merits of the contentions raised, I direct the Appellate Court namely the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, in appeal titled as 'Sushma Sehgal Versus Laskhar Singh and others' to be disposed of in accordance with law within a period of six weeks and in the meanwhile consider the application for stay or otherwise pending the appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Subject to this liberty, the Civil Revision is disposed of. 4. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 08.05.2009 sanjeev