Disposed
Chander Kanta Virk & Anr. v. Santosh Mittal
Punjab & Haryana HCCR/6610/2008
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
No. 6610 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
What the court decided
AI extract
No. 6610 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
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.
Civil Revision No. 6610 of 2008
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 6610 of 2008 Date of decision: 03.09.2009.
Mrs. Chander Kanta Virk and another
....Petitioners
Versus
Mrs. Santosh Mittal
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: - Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for petitioner No. 1.
Mr. D.V. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate, for petitioner No. 2.
Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate, for the respondent.
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, on an appeal filed against the order passed by the learned trial Court, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
On 20.8.2009, this Court passed the following order: -
“The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contends that in the garb of the notification dated 24.2.2006 the respondent in violation of the statutory provisions has raised kitchen, on the ground floor for which notice has been issued to the petitioner for resumption of the building.
Civil Revision No. 6610 of 2008
-2-
The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contends that the ground floor is in the same state as was taken on rent from the petitioner, and no violation has been committed nor any construction raised.
The learned counsel for the respondent further states that the notice issued to the respondent pointing out violation on the ground floor stand replied to and now the date fixed is 25.8.2009.
The learned senior counsel for the respondent also states that there is no violation of Bye laws of U.T. Chandigarh, and he would satisfy the competent authority in this regard. However, in case any violation is pointed out the same shall be rectified/permitted to be rectified by the petitioner without any interference.”
Learned counsel for the parties agree, that the petition be
disposed of by making the order dated 20.8.2009 absolute, during the pendency of the suit.
Ordered accordingly.
(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge
September 03, 2009 R.S.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mrs. Chander Kanta Virk
another
Mrs. Santosh Mittal
Vinod K. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court