The court held that an order rejecting an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. A revision petition is not maintainable. The petitioner was granted liberty to appeal but must explain any delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Revision petition dismissed; liberty to prefer appeal granted.
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 FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.2380 of 2013 Date of Decision.05.05.2015
Rajender Kumar
.......Petitioner
Versus
Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon and others
......Respondents
Present: Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
CPC is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. The revision petition is not maintainable.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
May 05, 2015 Pankaj*
PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.05.06 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal lies from an order of rejection under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC.
Whether a revision petition is maintainable against such an order.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Rajender Kumar
Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
