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 0, Cited by 5]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Shri Raj Kanwar vs Shri Dinesh Bindal And Others on 29 October, 2015

Author: Sanjay Karol

Bench: Sanjay Karol

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                   SHIMLA.




                                                                       .
                                            Civil Revision No.34/2014





                                          Decided on : October 29, 2015

    Shri Raj Kanwar                                                    ...Petitioner.





                                  Versus

    Shri Dinesh Bindal and others                                  ...Respondents




                                              of
    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 No

    For the Petitioner
                       rt         :    Mr. Anuj Nag and Mr. Dheeraj K.
                                       Vashista, Advocates.

    For the Respondents : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, vice
                          Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Advocate.

    Sanjay Karol, J. (oral)

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, following order is passed:-

(i) Impugned order dt. 21.4.2014, passed by Rent Controller, Shimla in case No.22/2 of 2004, titled as Shri Dinesh Bindal vs. Shri Raj Kanwar, is quashed and set aside, as it would be in the interest of justice and parties that another opportunity is afforded to the petitioner/tenant for leading evidence.
(ii) Parties undertake to appear before the Court below on 18.11.2015, on which date the date for leading evidence shall be fixed.
(iii) The entire evidence, except for official witnesses, shall be produced by the Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:15:45 :::HCHP 2

petitioner/tenant at his own risk and responsibility.

(iv) The trial is expedited.

.

(v) Parties undertake to fully cooperate.

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also, the pending of application(s), if any.



                   rt
    October 29, 2015                           (Sanjay Karol),
         (KS)                                     Judge









                                           ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:15:45 :::HCHP