IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6315 of 2008 Date of decision:26.02.2009 Mahender Singh and others ...Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Saurav Khatri, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. 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 notices issued to the respondents have been received duly served, but there is no representation on behalf of them. Proceeded ex parte. 2. Revision is at the instance of decree holders who sought in execution for the amount deposited in Court which represented the amount of compensation determined for acquisition of the property. The Executing Court directed indemnity-cum-surety bond on the ground that the order of compensation had not attained finality. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that in similar matters relating to the same acquisition proceedings, orders were passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.4558 of 2008 vacating the conditions for indemnity-cum-surety bond and directed that the rightful claimant could recover the amount subject to the rest of the Civil Revision No.6315 of 2008 - 2 - condition imposed by the Executing Court. Having regard to the fact that there is no subsisting order of stay passed by any Court, the decree holder shall be entitled to recover the amount without being insisted with filing of indemnity-cum-surety bond. 4. The Civil Revision is allowed in the above said terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 26.02.2009 sanjeev