IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3447 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.01.2011 Surjit Singh .... Petitioner Versus General Public and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Amrainder Singh, 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 32474-CII of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. application is allowed. Order dated 25.11.2010 is recalled and revision is restored to its original number. C.R. No. 3447 of 2010 Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.6.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Ambala thereby declining the extension of time to furnish indemnity bonds in compliance of order dated 17.3.2007. The brief facts of the case inter alia are that petitioner moved an application for issuance of the succession certificate which was not opposed by the other side and consequently vide order dated 17.3.2007, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Ambala directed to C.R. No. 3447 of 2010 (O&M) 2 issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioner on furnishing indemnity bond for the sum of ` 1,50,000/- with one surety of like amount on stamp papers. Indemnity bond was not furnished as directed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Ambala vide order dated 17.3.2007, however, thereafter an application was moved by the petitioner for extension of time to furnish the indemnity bond and surety in compliance of order dated 17.3.2007 which was declined by the learned Civil Judge vide impugned order. In the opinion of this Court, time to furnish indemnity bond and surety in compliance of order dated 17.3.2007 should have been granted, in view of the fact that petitioner was ill and was not able to move because of paralyze attack. Learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Prem Lata Vs. Ram Sarup reported in 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 423 placing reliance on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Batala Machine Tools Workshop Coop. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur has held that matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission without any notice to the opposite party, because if the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. In the opinion of this Court, present matter can be disposed of at the admission stage without any notice to the respondents. This Court is of the further opinion that issuing notices to the respondents shall cause unnecessary delay in the disposal of the matter, hence, this Court proposes to decide this petition without C.R. No. 3447 of 2010 (O&M) 3 notice to the respondents. Consequently, present petition is allowed and time to furnish indemnity bond and surety in compliance of order dated 17.3.2007 is extended for one month from today. (ALOK SINGH) 03.01.2011 JUDGE reena