The Court dismissed a petition and a defective review application as withdrawn with liberty to move a fresh review application. The interim order was vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2
versus
SHRI CHAND THROUGH LRS AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate for proposed respondent-Renu.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
After some arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits, on instructions, that there was clerical error in the application for review dated 11.01.2010 in that instead of seeking review of the order dated 13.12.2010 as per the caption, the prayer clause made a request which was not intended. He, thus, submits that the application for review being defective, he may be allowed to withdraw the application dated 11.01.2010 and the present petition with liberty to move a fresh review application before the trial Court.
The application dated 11.01.2010 for review and the present petition along with application filed therewith are dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty, as prayed, granted.
The interim order stands vacated.
Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J
FEBRUARY 08, 2018// srb
Dharam Pal and Ors.
Shri Chand Through LRS and ANR
R.K. Gauba
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
