Revision petition seeking impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed as withdrawn after counsel stated it had become infructuous, the underlying suit having already been decided.
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.
S. No.105-A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.1597 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:27.09.2024 Rulia Singh and others .....Pe22oners Vs. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:Mr. Raj Kumar Kakkar, Advocate for the pe��oners.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the pe��oners has made a statement that this pe��on has become infructuous, as a"er passing of the impugned order whereby impleadment of the pe��oners in the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was declined, the suit itself has been decided.
In view of the afore-said statement, the present revision is dismissed as withdrawn having been rendered as infructuous.
| September 27, 2024 | ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) | |
|---|---|---|
| renu | JUDGE | |
| Whether Speaking/reasoned | Yes/No | |
| Whether Reportable | Yes/No |
RENU 2024.09.27 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rulia Singh and others
State of Punjab and others
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
