Revision petition dismissed as withdrawn after petitioner sought withdrawal to file an application in the Trial Court due to inability to cross-examine a witness.
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.5668 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:07.09.2010.
Roop Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Harbhajan Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that his Advocate could not cross-examine the witness of the plaintiffs as he was busy in some other Court. The Court, thus, treated the cross-examination of the said witness as nil.
The petitioner has straightway filed this revision petition before this Court without even filing an application before the learned Trial Court. Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of this revision petition in order to file an application before the learned Trial Court.
Dismissed as withdrawn accordingly.
September 07, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE
Roop Singh
Harbhajan Singh and others
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
