CRR No.2291 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No.2291 of 2008 Date of decision: 25.05.2010 Jagdish Arora ........ Petitioner Versus Sunil Kapoor and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. V K Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 2 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 states that the matter has been compromised and in pursuance of the said compromise, other pending cases stand withdrawn by the petitioner, therefore, the present revision has to be withdrawn by the petitioner as having been rendered infructuous. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. V K Jindal states that in spite of his informing the petitioner, he has not come to make a statement either way. Hence, the learned counsel also expressed his inability to confirm the facts as to whether the parties have compromised. CRR No.2291 of 2008 2 In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No. 1, the present petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an application for revival of the petition if the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is found to be incorrect. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 25.05.2010 mohan