Civil Revision No. 4890 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4890 of 2010 Date of Decision: 5.8.2010 Dharampal Jindal .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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? Present: Shri K.K. Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 17.5.2010, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for rejection of the memo of appeal, was dismissed. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction, which was decreed on 26.2.2005. The appeal by the State was preferred beyond the period of limitation. The learned first Appellate Court condoned the delay. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of Civil Revision No.3930 of 2008, which was decided on 20.7.2009, wherein the order passed by Civil Revision No. 4890 of 2010 [2] the first Apepllate Court was confirmed with modification. The modification was to the extent of enhancement in the costs from Rs.1000/- to Rs.5000/- and that the decretal amount which has already been deposited by the State with the Executing Court shall be disbursed to the plaintiff. The grievance of the petitioner is that the entire decretal amount has not been disbursed, therefore, the memo of appeal is liable to be rejected. It has been found that the costs of Rs.5000/- has been tendered, but not accepted and the decretal amount of Rs.1,10,500/- has already been deposited and nothing more is due to the petitioner. Merely because, there is dispute regarding the extent of payment due to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the condition imposed vide order dated 20.7.2009 passed by this Court, has not been satisfied. The petitioner should contest the appeal on merits rather than on the issue of payment of the decretal amount ordered as a condition to condone delay. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 5.8.2010 ds