The Court granted permission to withdraw a revision petition challenging an order under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Permission to withdraw the revision petition is granted. The revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
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.3362 of 2017 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.3362 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision.06.04.2018
Vinod Kumar Jain ......Petitioner Vs
Subhash Kumar Jain and others .....Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.L. Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swati Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)
The costs of `10,000/- has been paid to the counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and 2 in cash.
Mr. Jain, learned Senior Counsel submits that he has instructions to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to avail the remedy, if permissible, in accordance with law.
As regards the misc. application, Ms. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that it is futile exercise in allowing the aforementioned application for placing on record Annexures P-16 to P-19 as they are already on record as Annexure P-1, P-2 and P-4.
The revision petition is directed against the order declining he application moved under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act for proving the arbitral award by way of secondary evidence but the factum of the dismissal of the suit on the same date had not been disputed. It has also PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.04.16 17:51 been brought to the notice of the Court that the order of dismissal of the suit I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.R. No.3362 of 2017 (O&M) -2-
had not been assailed by any first appeal.
Be that as it may, since Mr. Jain seeks permission of this Court for withdrawal of the revision petition, the same is granted and the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. As regards the liberty, in case the petitioner has remedy in accordance with law, the same can be availed of, if permissible.
| (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|
| April 06, 2018 | |
| Pankaj* | Whether reasoned/speaking Yes |
| Whether reportable No |
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.04.16 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Vinod Kumar Jain
Subhash Kumar Jain
others
AMIT RAWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
