High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an election petition due to non-payment of the security deposit. The single judge held no grounds for interference, relying on a precedent requiring the deposit.
The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the dismissal of the election petition.
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.
121
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 1557 of 2020
Date of Decision: 14.12.2022
Manisha Rani
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Manoj K. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge
December 14, 2022 “DK”
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2022.12.15 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the high court should interfere with the dismissal of an election petition for failure to file a security deposit.
Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to revoke the trial court's dismissal order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sugan Chand Saini v. Senior Sub Judge, NarnaulReferred¶1
Sugan Chand Saini v. Senior Sub Judge, Narnaul 1996 PLJ 356
Manisha Rani
State of Haryana
Anil Kshetarpal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
