The Single Judge dismissed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The Court held that the complainant's presence was unnecessary for adjudication and the impugned order was legal.
The revision petition is 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.
C.R. No.4787 of 2016 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.4787 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.19.08.2016
Ashu Chadha
.......Petitioner
Vs.
Gurcharan Singh and others ........Respondents
Present: Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
The petitioner is aggrieved of the dismissal of the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the proceedings initiated under Section 269 of the Punjab State Municipal Corporation Act.
Mr. D.K. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Gurcharan Singh, respondent-appellant, had filed an appeal against the order dated 10.07.2015 passed by Senior Town Planner, Jalandhar on the basis that the complaint was moved by the petitioner and therefore, the presence of the petitioner would be necessary for adjudication of the aforementioned lis . The Court below has not appreciated this fact and dismissed the application erroneously.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, appraised the paper book and of the view that the order passed by the Additional District Judge, dismissing the application is perfectly legal and justified, for, once on the basis of complaint, the concerned regulating authority has taken action in accordance with law, it will be taken to its logical end and the presence of the complainant in such case, in my view, would not be PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.08.23 11:07 necessary rather it would unnecessarily delay the adjudication as both the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.R. No.4787 of 2016 (O&M) -2-
parties are already at loggerheads and would move themselves in further litigation. In fact the doctrine akin to lis pendens is also applicable in such cases.
I do not find any ground is made out for interfering with the order under challenge, much less, the order cannot be said to be passed without jurisdiction. The impugned order is maintained and the revision petition is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE August 19, 2016 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.08.23 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the presence of the complainant was necessary for the adjudication of the appeal initiated under Section 269 of the Punjab State Municipal Corporation Act.
Whether the Additional District Judge acted without jurisdiction in dismissing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashu Chadha
Gurcharan Singh and others
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
