Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Rakesh Gautam & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 8 July, 2015

Author: Rajiv Sharma

Bench: Rajiv Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP No. 7756 of 2014.

                                                                            Decided on:    08.07.2015.
    Rakesh Gautam & ors.                                                    ......Petitioners.
                                         Versus




                                                                                        .
    State of H.P. & ors.                                                     .......Respondents.





    Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Pankaj Negi, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. AG and Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Dy. AG, for respondent No. 1.

Mr. K.D.Sood, Sr, Advocate, with Ms. Vandna Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4.

None for other respondents.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral).

The petitioners are permitted to move an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment in Civil Suit No. 117/1/2-9/87, within a period of three weeks from today. The application shall be decided by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bilaspur, in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter. It is stated by the respondents appearing in this petition that they would not oppose such an application as and when moved. Sh. K.D.Sood, Sr. Advocate, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the orders in the interregnum, only when Civil Suit was dismissed in default and now it has been revived. Till the application is decided by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bilaspur, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bilaspur, shall pass the necessary orders, as warranted from time to time, in accordance with law.

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

.

    July 08, 2015,                                       ( Rajiv Sharma ),
      (karan)                                                   Judge.





                        r             to









                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:32:06 :::HCHP