Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANAV JIT SINGH versus DEV RAJ & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Manav Jit Singh v. Dev Raj & Ors - CR-6639-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12415 (12 December 2006)

C.R. No.6639 of 2006 {1}

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6639 of 2006

Date of decision : 12.12.2006.

Manav Jit Singh ........Petitioner

versus

Dev Raj and others .......Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
Present : Mr.Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

* * *

ORDER

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)

The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 31.10.2006, passed by the learned trial Court, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for permission to file written statement, was declined.

In a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioner put in appearance before the learned trial Court on 13.2.2002 and he was given time to file reply on 6.3.2002. Since no reply was filed on 6.3.2002, the matter was adjourned to 1.4.2002. Even on 1.4.2002, reply was not filed but the issues were framed by the learned trial Court on the said date. Thereafter, the parties led their evidence including the present petitioner. Subsequently, an application was filed on 31.8.2006 to withdraw certain admissions made by the petitioner Manav Jit Singh in his testimony on 10.8.2006. Said application was dismissed on 29.9.2006 as the request of the petitioner has to withdraw the admission from the statement made before the Court. Thereafter, the C.R. No.6639 of 2006 {2}

petitioner filed an application for permission to file written statement. The learned trial Court found that issues were framed way back on 1.4.2002 and thereafter the petitioner has led his evidence. In fact, the application for withdrawal of the admission was declined on 29.9.2006, therefore, the present application is another attempt to withdraw the admission made by the petitioner Manav Jit Singh in his testimony. It has been further held that the application has been filed with an ulterior motive to linger on the proceedings.

In view of the above, I do not find any irregularity or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

Dismissed in limine.

(HEMANT GUPTA)

December 12, 2006 JUDGE

*mohinder


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.