In a civil revision petition under Article 226, the High Court dismissed the plea, holding the petition barred by delay as counsel offered no explanation for the 20-month lag since the impugned order and finding the order appealable under Order 43.
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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 3159 of 2008
Date of decision : January 06, 2010
Karnail Singh
....Petitioner
versus
Kuldeep Kaur alias Deepan and another
....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. M.S.Rai, Advocate, for the petitioner
None for respondent No. 1
Mr. CS Bagri, Advocate, for respondent no. 2
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 5.9.2006 (Annexure P/3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) stands dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
The instant revision petition is liable to be dismissed on two counts. Firstly, the instant revision petition was filed more than 20 months after the passing of the impugned order and there is no explanation for this
Civil Revision No. 3159 of 2008
-2-
long delay of 20 months in filing the revision petition. Consequently, the revision petition is barred by delay and laches. Secondly, the impugned order is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. For this reason as well, the instant revision petition cannot be entertained.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is
dismissed.
January 06, 2010 ' dalbir'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition is barred by six-month limitation, given it was filed over 20 months after the impugned order.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the interim injunction application is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, making this revision incompetent.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Karnail Singh
Kuldeep Kaur alias Deepan
another
L.N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
