The single judge dismissed the writ petition. The court held that a disputed question of fact regarding forcible possession taken by an individual is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court in a writ proceeding.
The writ petition was dismissed.
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. 22144 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.04.2013
Baljit Kaur
...Petitioner
versus
State Bank of Patiala and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:- Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for respondent No. 1-Bank
Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate for respondent No. 5
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The petitioner claims that respondent No. 5 has taken forcible possession of shop in question. The question whether the possession has been taken forcibly by respondent No. 5 is a disputed question of fact. Such disputed question of fact against an indvidual is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court in a writ petition.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE
( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE
April 11, 2013 G.Arora
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can adjudicate upon a disputed question of fact regarding forcible possession in a writ petition.
Baljit Kaur
State Bank of Patiala
another
HEMANT GUPTA
RITU BAHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
