The single-judge court disposed of the revision petition, noting that the petitioner could seek review regarding the ground of absent counsel for cross-examination.
The revision petition was disposed of; the petitioner is directed to seek review of the order for potential delay condonation.
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, CHANDIGARH
CR No. 145 of 2013 Date of decision January 11, 2013
Brij Bhusan Bagga
....... Petitioner
Vs.
Kulbhusan Bagga and others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. Amandeep Singh Gill , Advocate for the petitioner.
K. Kannan, J (oral).
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
January 11, 2013 archana
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition should be disposed of despite contentions regarding the absence of counsel for cross-examination.
Brij Bhusan Bagga
Kulbhusan Bagga
K Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
