Remanded

Rohtash Dass v. Umrao

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Apr 2010CR/1601/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged a trial court order dismissing an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC due to technical non-production of documents. The High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction, set aside the impugned order, removing the technical defect, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh hearing after allowing evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.8.2007 is set aside. The case is remanded to the trial court to decide the matter afresh after allowing the parties to lead evidence.

Rohtash Dass Vs Umrao — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.R. No. 1601 of 2008 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.R. No. 1601 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.4.2010

¶4

Rohtash Dass Chela Meena Dass Chela Sohan Dass

¶5

................Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

Umrao through LRs

¶8

.................Respondent

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri

¶10

Present: Sh. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Sh. R.D.S. Nirban, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

K.C. Puri, J. (Oral)

¶13

This is a revision petition against order dated 28.8.2007 passed by Sh.D.N. Bhardwaj, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohindergarh, vide which the application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, was dismissed.

¶14

Rohtash Dass filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the trial Court but the appeal was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, in Civil Appeal No. 248 of 1992 decided on 25.11.1992. The suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into peaceful possession of the suit property, was decreed.

¶15

C.R. No. 1601 of 2008 -2-

¶16

It is not disputed during the course of arguments that judgment dated 25.11.1992 has become final. The learned trial Court has dismissed the application on technical grounds that judgment and decree dated 25.11.1992, has not been brought on the record and these documents are only marked as Mark A-1 and Mark A-2. Further observation made by the trial Court is that the exact area has not been mentioned.

¶17

It is settled law that no party can be non-suited on the ground of technicalities.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that judgment and decree sheet are on the file but that fact has been disputed by the counsel for the respondent. However, the fact remains that trial Court should not have non-suited the petitioner on technical ground of nonproduction of judgment and decree sheet. From the perusal of the decree sheet, it is revealed that it is in respect of specific khewat number.

¶19

So, in these circumstances, the impugned order, does not sustain the test of legal scrutiny and the same stands set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial Court to decide the case afresh, after allowing the parties to lead evidence.

¶20

Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.5.2010.

¶21

The petition stands disposed of.

¶22

22.4.2010 chugh

¶23

C.R. No. 1601 of 2008 -3-

Rohtash Dass v. Umrao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohtash Dass v. Umrao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nathi Ram etc. Vs Diwa Kanwar @ Kalawati

Ankur Sharma Vs Irfan@Kallu and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Balwant Kaur and Ors.

M/S Kapeeshwar Estates P. Ltd. Vs Balbir & Ors.

Rajesh Sharma Vs India Infoline Securities Pvt. Lted. etc.

Ankush Aggarwal Vs India Infoline Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.