Applicant sought leave to appeal against a 2017 judgment of acquittal; respondent opposed, arguing pendency would be inconsequential. The court granted leave to appeal, admitted the main appeal for hearing in its turn, and clarified the pendency shall be inconsequential against the respondent.
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.
239 CRM-A-832-MA-2017
GURWINDER SINGH CHADHA V/S NARINDER SINGH
Present: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
None for the respondent.
As per report of Registry, service is complete, however, none has appeared on
behalf of the respondent.
Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the present applica#on was
filed against acqui&al in the year 2017 and he has a very good case on merit.
On the contrary, respondent’s counsel submits that the judgment of acqui&al is well reasoned and leave to appeal should not be granted. He further submits that in case, this Court grants leave to appeal and admit the main appeal, its turn will not come for hearing for decades, as such pendency of the appeal may be treated in-consequen#al for the respondent.
Leave to appeal granted.
Main appeal
Admit.
List for final hearing on its own turn as per its queue.
It is clarified that the pendency of this appeal shall be inconsequen#al in any
manner whatsoever against respondent.
Registry to issue post admission no#ce to the respondent within three months.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE
22.08.2024 Jyo�-II
JYOTI 2024.08.23 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
Gurwinder Singh Chadha
Narinder Singh
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
