IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3768 of 2008 Date of decision:05.03.2009 Rakesh Sehjapal ...Petitioner versus Shiv Dutt and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Avinash Mandla, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 8. Ms. Gurmeet Gill, Advocate for respondent No.5 Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.7. 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 order directing the stay to be held pursuant to the decree is challenged in revision on the ground that a petition to set aside the ex parte decree is pending and even without disposing of the application, the Court was passing orders in execution. The procedure followed by the learned Judge leaves which to be desired. No purpose in filing the petition for setting aside an ex parte decree will be made if it is assumed that the decree should be allowed to take effect and carried through till the last stage of sale and delivery of property. The exercise undertaken by the Court will make meaningless the filing of a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. C.R. No.3768 of 2008 - 2 - 2. The order of the learned Judge is set aside and the Court below is directed to take up the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree and pass orders on merits and till that exercise is completed. The proceedings in execution shall remain stayed. 3. The Civil Revision is allowed in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.03.2009 sanjeev