The revision petition was dismissed as infructuous. The judgment contains only a one-line order and decides no matter of general application; no substantive reasoning or legal proposition is provided in the text.
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
Civil Revision No.5977 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision:14.03.2013
Khushal Singh Mathauda
...Petitioner
versus
Sudhir Kumar Pandey
....Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner.
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
revision petition as the same has become infructuous.
infructuous.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE
14.03.2013
sanjeev
Khushal Singh Mathauda
Sudhir Kumar Pandey
K. KANNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
