Allowed

Gram Panchayat Nathupur v. Om Parkash and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Sept 2012CR/2590/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the trial court's order of ex-parte judgment against the petitioner Gram Panchayat, allowing the application to set aside the impugned order. The bench appointed a date for evidence recording and directed the trial court to dispose of the main suit within six months, subsequently allowing the civil revision.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order of 18.03.2006; allowed the application to set aside ex-parte order; fixed date for evidence; directed disposal within six months.

Gram Panchayat Nathupur Vs Om… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Civil Revision No.2590 of 2006 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.2590 of 2006 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : September 25, 2012

¶5

Gram Panchayat Village Nathupur

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Om Parkash and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL

¶11

Present Mr. J.S.Yadav, Advocate for the applicants-respondents.

¶12

¶13

M.JEYAPAUL, J.

¶14

C.M.No.24018-CII of 2012

¶15

Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, who was present in this Court was

¶16

directed to take notice for the petitioner. He took notice.

¶17

Heard the submissions made on either side. As the Civil Revision is pending right from the year 2006, the main Civil Revision itself is advanced to this day for final disposal.

¶18

CR No.2590 of 2012

¶19

Heard the submission made on either side.

¶20

Both the counsel have consented to take up the main Civil Revision itself for disposal.

¶21

It appears that the Revision petitioner who is none other than the Gram Panchayat, Nathupur, remained absent on 27.04.2005 and on account of which Gram Panchayat, Nathupur, who is the

¶22

Civil Revision No.2590 of 2006 (O&M)

¶23

¶24

defendant in the original suit was set ex-parte and the case was posted for recording ex-parte evidence.

¶25

On 07.11.2005, the application has been filed by the Gram Panchayat, Nathupur, defendant in the main suit to set aside the ex-parte order.

¶26

The Gram Panchayat has come out with a reason that due to administrative work, no official from the Panchayat could appear on the date fixed for hearing and the counsel engaged by the Panchayat also was busy in the High Court in connection with a Civil Original Contempt Petition filed as against the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon.

¶27

In my considered view, the aforesaid reason is found to be acceptable. Further, I find that the trial Court should have taken a lenient view as the case is still pending for recording ex-parte evidence.

¶28

In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the trial Court on 18.03.2006 is set aside and the application filed by the Revision Petitioner before the trial Court is allowed. Both the parties shall appear before the trial Court on 08.10.2012 for leading evidence. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit itself within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶29

Consequently the Civil Revision is allowed.

¶30

(M.JEYAPAUL) JUDGE

¶31

September 25, 2012 P.Singh

Gram Panchayat Nathupur v. Om Parkash and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat Nathupur v. Om Parkash and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baldev Raj and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Rajneesh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Mohinder Singh Vs Bahadur Singh and Others

Manjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

S.L. Goel Vs State (Union Territory, Chandigarh)

Bodh Raj Vs State of Punjab