Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Union Of India vs Dr.Balwant Singh And Others on 16 January, 2009

Author: Rajesh Bindal

Bench: Rajesh Bindal

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH.

                                   C.R. No.4999 of 2002 (O&M)

                                   Date of Decision: 16.1.2009.

Union of India
                                             ....Petitioner

            Versus

Dr.Balwant Singh and others
                                              ...Respondents

CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

Present:- Ms.Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate
          for the petitioner.

            Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate
            for the respondents.

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

**** The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Court below whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner on September 23, 1996 against the judgment and decree of trial Court dated February16, 1987 was dismissed as time barred. The order which is impugned has been placed on record at Page 41 of the paper book which deals with another application filed along with the appeal by the petitioner for leading additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. It specifically mentioned that the application for condonation of delay was dismissed vide separate order. The impugned order is not on record before this Court against which the revision is sought to be filed. Not only this even the letter and the earlier judgment and decree of the Court below which was sought to be relied upon for seeking condonation of delay also has not been produced on record before this Court to show prima-facie that it was a case for condonation of huge delay of more than 9 ½ years in filing the appeal even though petition before this Court is pending since April 2002 and the impugned order is dated November 23, 2001.

C.R. No.4999 of 2002 (O&M) -2-

Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present revision petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The application for condonation of delay of 43 days in filing the revision petition is also dismissed.

(RAJESH BINDAL) 16.1.2009 JUDGE Reema