This court dismissed a Civil Writ Petition seeking variation of a prior decree for recovery dated 06.11.1998 for Rs. 47,474/-. The court held that the remedy under the Public Law writ jurisdiction was not proper to alter a decree.
Writ petition dismissed holding that remedy chosen by petitioner was not proper to vary the decree.
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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 16892 of 2012 Date of Decision:- August 31, 2012
Harpal Singh
..............PETITIONER(S)
vs.
State Bank of India
...........RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
Present:- Mr. G.S. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
The respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 47,474/- on account of principal, interest and other incidental charges which was decreed on 06.11.1998. The prayer made in this petition would amount to variation in the said decree. The remedy chosen by the petitioner is not proper.
Dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge 31.08.2012 (G.S. Sandhawalia) shivani Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court exercise jurisdiction to vary a decree for recovery of money within a financial year.
What is whether proper remedy was approached by the petitioner.
Harpal Singh
State Bank of India
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
G.S. SANDHAWALIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
