The High Court Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed an application to preponed a hearing, dismissing the revision petition as infructuous because the underlying suit had been withdrawn, leaving nothing for consideration.
Application for preponing hearing allowed; revision petition dismissed as infructuous.
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.M. No.4596-CII of 2018 in/and C.R. No.6984 of 2017 Date of Decision.07.03.2018
Dalip Ram
......Petitioner
Vs
Jaspal Kaur and another
........Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the applicant-respondents.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)
The prayer in the application bearing No.4596-CII of 2018 is for preponing the date of hearing of the revision petition on the premise that the same has become infructuous, in view of the fact that the suit in which the impugned order was passed against which the present revision has been preferred, has itself been withdrawn. Therefore, nothing survives for consideration in the revision petition and seeks dismissal of the same as such.
In view of the aforementioned, the application is allowed. The hearing of the revision petition is preponed for today itself and the revision petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
March 07, 2018 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.03.08 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a revision petition should be dismissed as infructuous upon the withdrawal of the underlying suit.
Dalip Ram
Jaspal Kaur
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
