Dismissed

Ms Himadri Hydro Power Project (P) Ltd. v. Tilak Raj

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Mar 2015CMPMO/20/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order allowing impleadment of plaintiffs. The Court found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order but directed the trial court to expedite the trial within six months and issue dasti summons.

What did the court decide?

Trial expedited to be decided within six months; parties to cooperate; dasti summons for official witnesses; pending applications disposed of.

Ms Himadri Hydro Power Project (P)… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

CMPMO No.20 of 2015 Date of Decision: 05.03.2015

¶3

M/s Himadri Hydro Power Project (P) LTD.

¶4

…Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sh. Tilak Raj & another ..Respondents.

¶7

Coram:

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate.

¶10

For the Respondents: Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶11

Sanjay Karol, J (oral)

¶12

Petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 01.12.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Anni, District Kullu, H.P., whereby original plaintiffs’ application for impleading certain persons as plaintiffs stands allowed. Noticeably the suit is at initial stage and as such, no prejudice is caused to the defendant (petitioner herein) with the impleadment of such

¶13

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

¶15

persons as plaintiffs, more so, when they had apprehension of violation of their rights with regard to flow of water to their channel. Obstructions, if any, allegedly would be caused with the construction of Dam, which fact is seriously disputed by the petitioner.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as also perused the record, Court is of the view that there is neither any infirmity nor any illegality in the impugned order and as such, petition is disposed of with the following mutually agreed

¶17

terms:-

¶18

Trial is expedited. An endeavor shall be made by the trial Court to decide the lis within a period of six months.

¶19

Parties undertake to fully cooperate. 3. For all official witnesses, dasti summons shall be issued. Also parties shall produce their evidence at their own risk and responsibility, on such dates, which may be fixed by the trial Court. If required dasti summons be issued.

¶20

Trial Court shall consider and decide the petitioner’s application for

¶21

¶22

modification of interim order dated 22.06.2012. Needless to add, it shall be open for the trial Court to decide the same on its own merit, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶23

Pending application(s), if any, also stand

¶24

disposed of.

¶25

Copy dasti.

¶26

March 5, 2015 (Purohit)

¶27

(Sanjay Karol), Judge.

Ms Himadri Hydro Power Project (P) Ltd. v. Tilak Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Himadri Hydro Power Project (P) Ltd. v. Tilak Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Liyakat Ali Vs Nazir

Sh. Shakti Chand Vs Union of India

Sarita Sharma Vs State of Hp

Ravinder Raj Vs Hrtc

Mehmuda Vs Mohd.Hanif

Satya Devi Vs State