In this revision petition, the petitioner sought to challenge the dismissal of his application for leading additional evidence. The petitioner's counsel invoked the court's leniency to voluntarily withdraw the application, leading to the immediate dismissal of the proceedings.
The revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner.
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.
CR 897/2015
1
123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision:09.02.2015.
Piara
.............Petitioner
v.
Satpal and others
.............Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr.P.K.Rohilla,Advocate for the petitioner
Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)
Defendant no.3 is in revision aggrieved by the order dated 1.12.2014(P-5) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Samalakha whereby his application for leading additional evidence in the shape of an order dated 12.12.2013 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade ordering the change of khasra girdwari regarding suit land in favour of the applicant, has been dismissed.
Case of plaintiffs is that prior to 1960 their grand father Tungal son of Sh.Chajju Ram was in cultivating possession of the suit land without any rent/batai etc. to any person and after his death in the year 1960 father of the plaintiffs namely Sh.Dhara son of Tungal came into cultivating possession. He has continuously been shown to be in cultivating possession. Defendants are real brothers of Sh.Dhara son of Tungal and after the death of Dhara, plaintiffs(sons of Dhara) have been shown to be in cultivating possession as legal representatives videRAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.02.11 11:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.
CR 897/2015 2
123
rapat no.124. Apprehending interference in possession, plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering and dispossessing them. It is also not in dispute that the said order dated 12.12.2013 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade was in the knowledge of defendant no.3/petitioner prior to closing of his evidence, the operation of which, in any case, has already been stayed in the appeal filed against the same.
After arguing for sometime, learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw the present revision petition.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
09.02.2015 joshi
(Jaswant Singh) Judge
RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.02.11 11:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.
Piara
Satpal
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
