Punjab-Haryana High Court
William Singh Sandhu vs Jagdish Varinder Singh & Another on 30 April, 2013
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CR No.2647 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.2647 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: April 30, 2013
William Singh Sandhu ...Petitioner
Versus
Jagdish Varinder Singh & another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. R.B.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajan Gupta, J.
In the present revision petition, order dated 5.4.2013, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala rejecting prayer for preponment of the case has been impugned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that order passed by the court below is wholly unsustainable. Plea of petitioner for preponment of date of hearing of the case ought to have been accepted by the court below.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
It appears that during the pendency of civil suit before the trial court, application was moved by plaintiff/petitioner for providing police help for implementation of the injunction order passed by the court. Plea was resisted by the defendants contending that no construction has been carried out at the site. The report and site plan placed on record did not pertain to the suit land. Plaintiff, however, CR No.2647 of 2013 2 prayed for preponment of the date of hearing of the case. This plea was rejected by the court below observing that there were other cases which deserved priority being in target and action plan category. Said order has been impugned by the plaintiff. I find no merit in the pleas raised before this court. The case is fixed before the court below on 13.6.2013. The revision petition preferred by plaintiff/petitioner appears to be totally frivolous. The trial court has merely rejected prayer for preponment of hearing of the case. It is inexplicable how such an order can be impugned by way of revision petition. Plaintiff cannot be allowed to abuse the process of law. This revision petition is, thus, without any merit.
Dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE April 30, 2013 'rajpal'