First appeal against a remand order by the Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur. Respondent No.1's counsel informed that the trial Court had already decided the matter after remand, rendering the appeal infructuous. The Court disposed of the appeal as infructuous.
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.
109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SAO-31-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 09, 2024
Pal Masih … Appellant Versus Lal Masih and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: - None for the appellant.
Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for respondent No.1.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Power of a�orney has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1. Nobody has put in appearance for LRs or respondent No.2, despite service.
| August 09, 2024 | (DEEPAK GUPTA) |
|---|---|
| sarita | JUDGE |
| Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No |
|
| Whether reportable: Yes/No |
Sarita Rani 2024.08.09 05:37 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
Pal Masih
Lal Masih
Respondent No.2
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
