The revision petition was dismissed as infructuous because the underlying plaint on which the impugned interim order was passed and against which the revision was directed had been rejected. No cause of action survives.
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.3648 of 2017 Date of Decision.20.02.2018
Sunita Rani
......Petitioner
Vs
Sukhjinder Singh and another
........Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Impinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaint in which the interim order was passed and against which the revision petition was directed, has itself been rejected, therefore, no cause of action survives for consideration.
In view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner, nothing survives for consideration in the revision and the same is dismissed as having become infructuous.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE February 20, 2018 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.02.23 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Sunita Rani
Sukhjinder Singh
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
