Single-paragraph oral order dismissing the tenant's revision petition against the Rent Controller's rejection of secondary evidence, citing a Supreme Court judgment and noting the matter was not pressed.
The tenant's revision petition was dismissed.
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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.7619 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 9.12.2011
Sh. Swaran Singh
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sh. Viney Kathuria
......Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order dated 14.9.2011 of the Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby his application for leading secondary evidence has been rejected.
After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant revision petition be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to seek an appropriate remedy before the Appellate Authority in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal , JT 2011 (6) SC 236.
Ordered accordingly.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
December 9, 2011 ps
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow the tenant's revision petition challenging the rejection of his application for leading secondary evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup BansalReferred¶13
Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal, JT 2011 (6) SC 236 · Who else cites this
Sh. Swaran Singh
Sh. Viney Kathuria
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
