RSA No.4006 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4006 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on :25.11.2009 Gurcharan Singh ... Appellant versus Amarjit Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers 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? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) On 28.08.2009, the following order was passed: “This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant challenging the sale deed executed by him in favour of the respondents. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant did not lead his evidence and that is why the suit was dismissed and that if the matter is remanded back, the appellant would lead his entire evidence within one opportunity. In my opinion, such a course can only be considered once the respondents are compensated for this gross negligence on behalf of the appellant. Let notice of motion be issued to the respondents by way of dasti process returnable on 25.09.2009, RSA No.4006 of 2008 (O&M) -2- subject to the appellant depositing three bank drafts in favour of the respondents in the amount of Rs.10,000/- each with the Registrar(J) of this Court, within a period of 15 days from today. In case, drafts are not deposited within the stipulated period, this appeal shall be deemed to be dismissed without reference to the Bench.” Thereafter on 25.09.2009, the following order was passed: “This application has been filed for extension of time to comply with the order dated 28.08.2009. For the reasons recorded, the same is allowed. One month's more time is granted to comply with the said order. Adjourned to 25.11.2009.” Even today a request has been made for further extension of time. In view of the order dated 28.08.2009 even the order dated 25.09.2009 should not have been passed. However, in any case there is no justification for further extension of time. Consequently, request for grant of more time is declined and the appeal is dismissed. November 25, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE