Allowed

Manju Mittal and Anr. v. Arun Kumar and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Oct 2011CR/6432/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, considered a plea regarding prolonged inactivity and excessive adjournments in a suit for specific performance. The Court held petitioners are senior citizens deserving expeditious trial but rejected the prayer for a three-month deadline due to other pending cases. The Court directed the trial court to decide the suit w

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is allowed; the trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously within one year.

Manju Mittal and Anr. Vs Arun Kumar and Anr. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

Civil Revision No. 6432 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 6432 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 20^th , 2011

¶5

Manju Mittal and another

¶6

.... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Arun Kumar Goyal and another

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶13

On the plea that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 2.10.2003 is pending against them with effect from 2.1.2007 and no progress is being made towards decision of the suit and even application for ad interim injunction is yet to be decided, the defendants have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula to decide the civil suit within three months and to decide the injunction application within one week.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in all, 42 adjournments have been given in this case. According to him, the petitioners are senior citizens and they are being made to face the prolonged trial without any meaningful proceedings being

¶15

¶16

Civil Revision No. 6432 of 2011

¶17

conducted therein.

¶18

In this case, the issues were framed on 9.5.2008 and thereafter, one after the other adjournments have been given for arguments on stay application. At times, the case appears to have been taken up for evidence of the plaintiff also but thereafter again the file reverts to the stage of hearing arguments on the application.

¶19

A perusal of the order sheet, reproduced in the revision petition from page No. 8 to 40, it seems that learned trial court has forgotten the directions of this court for deciding the cases by and against senior citizens on priority basis. At least, the suit does not deserve to be adjourned in the manner, it is being adjourned by the court.

¶20

However, other suits pending in the courts are much older than the suit in hand and though the petitioners deserve a favourable order directing the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously, yet they do not deserve the order directing the trial court to decide the suit within three months as has been prayed for by them.

¶21

In these circumstances, I accept the revision petition and direct learned trial court to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK)

¶23

¶24

Civil Revision No. 6432 of 2011

¶25

JUDGE October 20^th , 2011 som

Manju Mittal and Anr. v. Arun Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Mittal and Anr. v. Arun Kumar and Anr.

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

Mandakni Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Balwinder Singh Alias Pappu Vs State of Punjab

Premjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harbhagwan Singh @ Bhagwan Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ajay Sharma @ Lucky Vs State of Punjab