Revision petition concerning a fine of Rs.500/-; the court was informed that the petitioner and respondent No.1 had expired. Noting the petitioner's death in 2012 and his prior deposit of the fine, the court held that the petition stood abated and disposed it of accordingly.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(202) CRR-429-2008 Decided on: 12.03.2026
Sukhdev Singh ……Petitioner Versus Harnek Si n gh & another ..…Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI
Present:None for the petitioner
None for respondent No.1.
Mr.Akhil Kamra, AAG, Punj a b, for respondent No.2.
RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI, J. (Oral) :
12.03.2026 (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI) Sailesh JUDGE
| Whetherspeaking/reasoned : | Yes | |
|---|---|---|
| Whether Reportable : | No |
SAILESH RANJAN 2026.03.13 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition should be disposed of given the reported death of the petitioner, who had already deposited the imposed fine of Rs.500/-.
Sukhdev Singh
Harnek Singh
Respondent No.2 (State of Punjab)
Ramesh Chander Dimri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
