The petitioner challenged the adjournment sine die of his suit filed against the State. The bench noted the compensation policy was already sub judice in a writ petition held by the court as fatal to the petition's merit.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6579 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision 04.12.2009
Hoshiar Singh
...... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
...... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):
Aggrieved against the order dated 05.08.2008, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), whereby on the application of the respondents-State of Haryana, the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff (herein referred as 'the petitioner') has been adjourned sine die, he has preferred this petition.
The policy under which the compensation sought is already sub-judice before the High Court in a writ petition, therefore, there is no merit in the petition.
Dismissed. However, immediately after the writ petition, as alleged, is decided, the counsel would be at liberty to move the application before the trial Court for restoration of the suit.
(A.N.Jindal) Judge
04.12.2009 mamta-II
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present civil revision is maintainable given that the substantive issue regarding compensation policy is sub judice in a writ petition pending before the High Court.
Hoshiar Singh
State of Haryana
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
