IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7492 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 17, 2010 Shiv Mehto. …Petitioner Versus Som Dutt Sharma. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner – tenant states that against the ex-parte judgment and decree, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree was moved along with a stay application seeking stay of the execution of the ex-parte judgment and decree, which is pending disposal. Learned counsel further states that just to ensure the non-execution of the ex-parte judgment and decree, objections were wrongly preferred in the execution proceedings, which were rejected by the impugned C.R.No. 7492 of 2010 order. Learned counsel fairly stated that present petition be dismissed as withdrawn with direction to the Court below to decide the stay application pending in a proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. without being prejudice from the observations made in the impugned order. Present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, learned Court below is directed to decide the stay application moved by the tenant-petitioner along with application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., at its own merit, in accordance with law, without being prejudice from any observations made in the impugned order, within 10 days from the date certified copy of this order is placed before the Court below. November 17, 2010 (Alok Singh) vkd Judge 2