IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4758 of 2008 Date of decision:02.03.2009 Ram Jeet Mauria ...Petitioner versus Nirmala Devi ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rishav Jain, Advocate with Mr. Arun Jindal, 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 revision is against an order passed on 14.09.2007 by the trial Court disposing of the application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC permitting the petitioner to sue as an indigenous person and also granting decree for the plaintiff as prayed for. That order was challenged in appeal before the District Judge, Patiala and he had passed an order on 21.05.2008 finding fault with the trial Court in disposing of the application under Order 33 Rule 1 relating to indigency along with the merits of the claim claimed in the suit. While disposing of the appeal, the order that was passed by the District Judge reads as follows:- “The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the lower court on 14.6.2008. Lower court file be sent back immediately and appeal filed be consigned to the record room.” Civil Revision No.4758 of 2008 - 2 - 2. By virtue of the order dated 21.05.2008, the order passed on 14.09.2007 is superseded and that there cannot be a foundation for a revision to this Court. 3. The order dated 14.09.2007 does not any longer survive after an order was passed by the District Judge, Patiala on 21.05.2008 and a revision is not permissible against order dated 14.09.2007. 4. The revision is not maintainable and dismissed as such. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 02.03.2009 sanjeev