IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6238 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 21st July, 2009. Kulwant Kaur Petitioner through Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate Versus Kuldeep Singh & Anr. Respondents through Mr. K.S.Rekhi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved at the orders dated 15.11.2007 and 11.10.2008 passed by the Civil Judge [Senior Division]-cum-Executing Court, Amritsar. Vide the first order, the objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed due to her non-appearance, vide the second order her application to restore the objection-petition has been dismissed. The petitioner claims to be a tenant in the premises in dispute. She along with her son – Tajinder Bir Singh filed a suit for Permanent Injunction against the landlord to restrain him from their forcible dispossession. The civil suit was disposed of on the statement made by the respondent – landlord on 24.10.1996 that the plaintiffs shall not be dispossessed except in due course of law. Meanwhile, the landlord had filed an eviction petition on 22.1.1996 against Tajinder Bir Singh only without impleading the present petitioner as a party-respondent. The eviction petition was allowed ex-parte. The landlord filed an Execution Application and on receipt of notice thereof that she alleged to have come to know about passing of the ex-parte eviction order. The petitioner engaged a counsel and filed her objections. It appears that the counsel for the petitioner made a statement before the Executing Court that the objections may be dismissed for want of instructions/non-appearance of the objector. The impugned order dated 15.11.2007 was resultantly passed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application through another counsel for restoration of her objections. That application has also been dismissed by the Executing Court vide the second impugned order dated 11.10.2008. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Learned counsel for the respondent – landlord urges and rightly so that the petitioner or her son are occupying the premises without paying any rent from December, 1993. He submits that if the petitioner is willing to pay the arrears of rent, he would not seriously oppose the adjudication of her objections by the Executing Court on merits. The conditional consent given by learned counsel for the respondent – landlord is acceptable to learned counsel for the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 15.11.2007 and 11.10.2008 are set aside and the Executing Court is directed to decide the objections filed by the petitioner on merits, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall tender 50% of the arrears of rent along with interest and costs, as may be assessed by the Executing Court, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received and she shall continue to pay the provisional rent @ Rs.1000/- per month by 10th of each calendar month till the objections are decided on merits. The Executing Court shall also determine as to from which date the petitioner – tenant is in arrears of rent and the balance thereof shall thereafter be paid by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of such determination. Disposed of. Dasti. July 21, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE