Dismissed

Kalawati & Ors. v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Aug 2013CR/4571/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revising the dismissal of a revision petition, the Court dismissed the petitioners' plea to adjourn their appeal sine die. The lower court correctly declined the prayer due to Supreme Court non-stay and High Court directions prohibiting such adjournments in pending Full Bench decision cases.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with District Legal Service Authority, Sirsa.

Kalawati & Ors. Vs Kuldeep Singh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CR 4571/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR 4571/2013 Date of decision:01/08/2013

¶5

Kalawati and others

¶6

.............Petitioners

¶7

¶8

Kuldeep Singh and others

¶9

.............Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr.Manish Soni,Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)

¶13

Plaintiffs/petitioners are in revision aggrieved against the order dated 16.7.2013 (P5) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa whereby their application for adjourning their appeal sine die filed against the decree passed by the trial court dismissing their suit, has been dismissed.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioners heard.

¶15

It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they have become owners in possession of the suit land on expiry of the time period of usufructuary mortgage. The trial court dismissed the suit vide decree dated 20.11.2010 by placing reliance upon decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Kishan and

¶16

Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.01 16:29 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.

¶17

CR 4571/2013

¶18

¶19

others v Sheo Ram and others , 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 334. The petitioners filed an appeal wherein an application for adjourning the same sine die was moved in view of pendency of SLP before Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of this Court. It is apparent that the learned Additional District Judge in view of no stay granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as also in due deference of the letter dated 21.5.2013 issued by this Court directing the subordinate judiciary not to adjourn such like cases sine die, declined the prayer. It is thus apparent that the learned lower Appellate Court has rightly declined the prayer in view of the specific directions passed by this Court and yet this frivolous revision petition has been filed.

¶20

In view of the above, present revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to be deposited with District Legal Service Authority, Sirsa.

¶21

01.08.2013. joshi

¶22

(Jaswant Singh) Judge

¶23

Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.01 16:29 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.

Kalawati & Ors. v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalawati & Ors. v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Singh Vs Baljeet Singh and Anr.

Surinder Kumar Sabharwal Vs Sukhraj Singh

Sukhdev Singh Vs Jangir Kaur & Anr.

Sukhwant Singh & Ors. Vs Garja Singh & Ors.

Orchid Space Designs Pvt. Ltd. Vs Garja Singh and Ors.

Balwant Singh and Ors. Vs Rajiv and Anr.