In this civil revision, the High Court dismissed the petition. There were no grounds to interfere with the Trial Court's order allowing restoration of the suit. The impugned order was acknowledged as being in the interest of administration of justice.
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 FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Civil Revision No.1205 of 2010(O&M)
Decided on : January 24, 2011
Nirvail Singh and others
... Petitioners
VERSUS
Sadh Singh and others
... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Rohit Verma, Advocate for Mr.Munishwar Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Vide the impugned order dated 7.11.2009, the Trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiffs – respondents for restoration of the suit, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs.
Heard.
It is in the interest of administration of justice to apply the principles of audi alteram partem and decide the case after hearing both the parties. The Trial Court while allowing the application in question also imposed costs of Rs.5000/- upon the applicant – plaintiffs/ respondents.
No grounds to interfere.
Dismissed.
January 24, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE
`gian'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in allowing the application for restoration of the suit subject to payment of costs.
Nirvail Singh and others
Sadh Singh and others
A.N.Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
