The High Court disposed of Civil Revision No.88 of 2009 as infructuous since the local commissioner appointed by the Executing Court had already executed the sale deed in favor of the respondent, and the revision had been stayed by the Court.
Disposed as infructuous; petitioner permitted to file an application for revival.
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.88 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.88 of 2009
Date of Decision:24.07.2009
Virender son of Baru Ram
.....Petitioner
versus
Rajesh Kumar son of Ram Chander Jain and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr.Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral)
In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-JD has impugned the order dated 11.12.2008 whereby the Executing Court had appointed a local commissioner to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1decree holder on JDs' behalf in accordance with the decree under execution.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that the aforesaid order dated 11.12.2008 passed by the Executing Court was stayed by this Court on 12.01.2009 whereas the local commissioner who was appointed vide the impugned order dated 11.12.2008 by the Executing Court had already executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 on 15.12.2008 and, therefore, the present revision petition has been rendered
Civil Revision No.88 of 2009
2
infructuous and the same may be disposed of as such.
On the last date of hearing, no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Even today again, no one is present on his behalf despite the case having been called twice.
In view of the above, the present revision petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to file an application for revival of the revision petition in case, something survives therein.
July 24, 2009 seema
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Virender son of Baru Ram
Rajesh Kumar son of Ram Chander Jain
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
