In a civil revision petition challenging an interlocutory order of the trial court which extended time for deposit of ad valorem court fees, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no ground was made out to interfere with the trial court's exercised discretion.
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.
112
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 851 of 2019
Date of Decision: 19.12.2022
Mohinder Singh (Since Deceased) through his Legal Representative
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Urmila Devi and Another
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. J.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. D.D.Bansal, Advocate for the respondents.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ Court has not been drawn to any perversity in the said orders. Thus, this 2022.12.22 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Civil Revision No. 851 of 2019 2
Court does not find it appropriate to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge
December 19, 2022 “DK”
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2022.12.22 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's interlocutory order extending time for payment of court fees.
Whether the trial court's exercise of discretion in granting additional time for deposit of ad valorem court fee is perverse or unwarranted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohinder Singh (Since Deceased) through his Legal Representative
Urmila Devi
Anil Kshetarpal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
