Revision petition assailing dismissal of impleadment application dismissed as infructuous since the main suit for declaration and injunction had already been decided.
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 AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.302 of 2011
Date of Order: 3.2.2011
Tejinder Mohan
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Shruti Kant and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. Neelesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL)
Petitioner had filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 2.8.2010 (P.5) whereby his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as party was dismissed.
Learned counsel at the time of arguments very fairly concedes that present petition has become infructuous since the suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction stands decided. He, however, prays that the findings recorded in the impugned order qua the rights of the petitioner in the property as also the nature of the property would not affect his rights in the other suit filed by the petitioner.
Dismissed as infructuous.
February 03, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE
Tejinder Mohan
Shruti Kant
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
