Civil Revision No.1108 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1108 of 2008 Date of decision: 01.04.2009 Jaswant Kaur and Ors. .............Petitioners Vs. Shankar Ram and Ors. ............Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjeev Walia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL 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? -.- A.N. JINDAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that no date of the compromise has been mentioned and the application should have been accompanied by an affidavit. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the copy of the compromise has already been placed on record, the secondary evidence of which has been allowed and it refers to the date as well as the name of parties between which it was effected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Khemraj and others AIR 2000 SC 1759 in order to contend that the application should have been accompanied by an affidavit. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent states at bar that the Civil Revision No.1108 of 2008 -2- application was accompanied by an affidavit. He has also filed the copy of the affidavit. Thus, this plea is not sustainable. Consequently the petition is dismissed. (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE April 01, 2009 Pankaj*