IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2548 of 2003 Date of decision: December 10, 2008. Satish Kumar ...Petitioner(s) v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri G.K. Chalwa, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.1.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon whereby an appeal preferred by the respondent (DHBVN) and its authorities was accepted and the petitioner-plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC has been dismissed. While issuing notice of motion, this Court vide order dated 4.10.2004 directed that recovery from the petitioner shall remain stayed. The interim order was made absolute while admitting this revision petition on 3.2.2006. In the main civil suit, the petitioner appears to have challenged the charge-sheet issued to him allegedly after a period of 12 years. The civil suit was filed in the year 2000. Learned Counsel for the parties state that there is every likelihood that by now the civil suit might have been decided on merits. In any case, the interim order against the recovery passed by this Court is operating from the last over five years and since no serious prejudice has been caused to the respondents even if the civil suit fails as the recovery, if any, can be effected from the retiral benefits, I am of the considered view that the interim order deserves to be continued during the pendency of the civil suit. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that no recovery shall be effected from the petitioner till the suit is decided. December 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge