The High Court set aside an ex-parte order of the Permanent Lok Adalat which had allowed a previous writ petition, restoring the earlier petition to its original status due to jurisdictional limitations.
Impugned order set aside; CWP No.17857 of 1995 restored to original number, status and listed as per turn.
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 Writ Petition No.3518 of 2004 Date of Decision : February 15, 2010.
State of Punjab and another ..... Petitioners
versus
Mohinder Kaur and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab, for the petitioners.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
ORDER
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The State of Punjab has approached this Court against the order dated 23.9.2002 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat of the High Court whereby Civil Writ Petition No.17857 of 1995 has been allowed.
Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, respondent Nos.2, 3 & 7 were duly served but they did not appear despite service and were proceeded against ex-parte. Respondent No.4 is reported to have died. His legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.8 & 9 but from the order dated 24.8.2009 of Registrar Judicial-III, it appears
C.W.P.No .3518 of 2004 2
that they have also not filed any reply despite opportunity granted to them. The order dated 13.10.2009 passed by this Court directing issuance of fresh notices to respondent Nos.8 & 9 appears to have been passed overlooking the earlier order dated 24.8.2009 regarding service of these respondents.
I have heard learned State counsel and perused the impugned
order.
It is apparent that there consensus was arrived at between the parties and the Lok Adalat proceeded to adjudicate the controversy on merits. Keeping in view the scope of jurisdiction exercisable by a Lok Adalat, the impugned order cannot sustain in law. The same is accordingly set-aside and CWP No.17857 of 1995 is restored to its original number and status and is ordered to be listed as per its turn.
The present civil writ petition is allowed in the afore-
mentioned terms.
Dasti.
15-02-2010
Mohinder
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an order by the Permanent Lok Adalat allowing a writ petition against consent can sustain legally.
State of Punjab
Mohinder Kaur
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
