Allowed

Beervati v. M/S Ora Land and Housing Pvt. Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Mar 2021CR/411/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the allowance of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the High Court did not decide on merits as the petitioner offered to deposit the court fee. The Court dispensed with service, upheld the impugned order, and granted an extension of time to deposit the court fee.

What did the court decide?

Extension up to 25.03.2021 to deposit the ad valorem court fee; the impugned order was upheld.

Beervati Vs M/S Ora Land and Housing… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

106

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR No.411 of 2021 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 05.03.2021

Smt. Beervati

…..Petitioner

versus

M/s Ora Land & Housing Pvt. Ltd.

¶8

.....Respondent

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶10

Present: Mr. Virender Rana, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

¶12

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral):

¶13

Heard through video conferencing.

¶14

This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram in Civil Suit No.2297 of 2020 whereby the application filed by the applicant (respondent herein) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been allowed.

¶15

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would make good the ad valorem Court Fee as determined in the impugned order dated 08.02.2021. He, however, seeks an extension of 15 days’ time for depositing the amount of Court Fee, which is to be deposited by 08.03.2021.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶17

PARKASH CHAND 2021.03.06 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CR No.411 of 2021 -2-

¶19

In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the matter is not being decided on merits, service upon the respondent is dispensed with.

¶20

The order dated 08.02.2021 is upheld, however, the petitioner is granted time up to 25.03.2021 to deposit the ad valorem Court Fee. It is made clear that in case the amount of ad valorem Court Fee, as determined in the order dated 08.02.2021, is not deposited within the extended period, the present petition shall be deemed to be dismissed.

¶21

Disposed off accordingly.

¶22

(ALKA SARIN) JUDGE

¶23

05.03.2021 parkash

¶24

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶25

PARKASH CHAND 2021.03.06 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Beervati v. M/S Ora Land and Housing Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beervati v. M/S Ora Land and Housing Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar Vs Hdfc Bank Limited and Anr.

Naveen Kumar Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Anr.

Virender Vs Zila Parishad, Gurugram and Another

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Manjeet Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Satya Pal Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.