IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4942 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 31-08-2009 Sajjan Singh .....Petitioner versus Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Rup Nagar and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Amrik Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 21.1.2009, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Tribunal, Rupnagar, whereby certain adverse remarks have been made against him while deciding the election petition titled as Sunita Devi versus Bholi Devi and others. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In my considered opinion, the petitioner should approach the Election Tribunal itself and give explanation to the said Authority. Suffice it to say that if the Election Tribunal is satisfied with the explanation, it C.R. No.4942 of 2009 (O&M) 2 shall sympathetically consider the expunction of adverse remarks recorded against the petitioner. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Dasti. 31-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE