The Single Judge rejected the revision petition challenging a trial court's brief docket order, finding no perversity or miscarriage of justice to warrant interference.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
C.R.P. No.1802 OF 2016
O R D E R:
Heard Mr.K. Murali Krishna for revision petitioners.
The revision petitioners challenge the docket order dated 08.12.2015. The docket order, no doubt is brief, but having regard to the totality of circumstances and to afford opportunity to 1st respondent/plaintiff, conditional order is passed.
The trial Court has exercised discretion within its jurisdiction and I do not see any perversity or miscarriage of justice to interfere with impugned order under revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
______________ S.V. BHATT, J
Date:03.06.2016 Stp
Revision Petitioners
1st Respondent/Plaintiff
S.V. BHATT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
