Disposed

Roshan Oil Mills v. Kamla Devi and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Sept 2011CR/5448/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the petitioner to file an application under Order 21 Rule 106 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, treating it as filed within limitation despite the previous dismissal of an application under Order 9 Rule 13. Evidence from the earlier application can be formally used in the new one.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file application under Order 21 Rule 106 CPC read with Section 151 CPC; earlier evidence to be considered.

Roshan Oil Mills Vs Kamla Devi and Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.5448 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision: 7^th September, 2011

¶4

Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Kamla Devi and others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Present: Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 25^th May, 2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridkot, whereby application filed by the petitioner praying that application filed by him under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC be treated as an application under Order 21 Rule 106 read with Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner states that even though no application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC was maintainable, giving of a wrong Section will not bar the petitioner to pray that above said application be treated as application under Order 21 Rule 106 read with Section 151 CPC.

¶14

During the course of arguments, it has been admitted by counsel for the petitioner that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC has already been dismissed.

¶15

¶16

Civil Revision No.5448 of 2011 (O&M)

¶17

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can file an application under Order 21 Rule 106 read with Section 151 CPC stating therein that under a wrong provision of law he had approached the Court earlier and therefore, the application now filed under Order 21 Rule 106 read with Section 151 CPC be considered and construed within the period of limitation as on same cause he had filed application under wrong provision of law. Furthermore, the petitioner can also make a request to the Executing Court that the evidence led by him in pursuance of application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC be taken as evidence in the application under Order 21 Rule 106 read with Section 151 CPC. If such an application is filed, this Court has no doubt that the same shall be decided by the Executing Court on merits and in accordance with provisions of law.

¶18

The application so filed, shall be decided within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner is also permitted to make a prayer for interim-relief in the application to be filed by him.

¶19

With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of.

¶20

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶21

September 7, 2011 rps

Roshan Oil Mills v. Kamla Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Oil Mills v. Kamla Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahender Kumar Vs Dwarka Prasad

Jarnail Singh Vs Bachan Singh and Ors.

Yashpal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurmail Singh Vs Balwant Singh & Ors.

Vipan Kumar Sharma Vs Ludhiana Stock Exchange Association Ltd.

Ajay Kumar and Ors. Vs Balwant Singh