Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SADHU SINGH versus PUNJAB STATE & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sadhu Singh v. Punjab State & Ors - CR-4255-1999 [2006] RD-P&H 1682 (16 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C.R.No.4254 of 1999

Date of Decision : March 08, 2006.

Sadhu Singh .... Petitioner

Vs.

Punjab State & others .... Respondents

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : None for the parties.

JUDGMENT (Oral) :

The present petition has been filed by defendant no.4 Sadhu Singh, impugning the order dated August 09, 1999, passed by the learned trial Judge, whereby an application filed by the aforesaid defendant, for granting permission to file the written statement, was rejected.

The facts which emerge from the record shows that the defendant no.4 had put in appearance before the learned trial court on September 16, 1995. He availed of more than 10 opportunities to file the written statement from September 16, 1995 till August 22, 1996. Since the written statement was not filed, and the cost imposed upon him for availing of the opportunities, was also not deposited, therefore, his defence was ordered to be struck off, by the trial court, vide order dated August 22,

1996. The aforesaid order was never challenged by the defendant no.4 at any point of time, for a period of more than two years. The defendant- petitioner filed an application before the trial court seeking permission to file the written statement. The said application was rejected by the learned trial court.

In my considered view, there is no scope for interference in the C.R.No.4254 of 1999 : 2 :

present revision petition. The order dated August 22, 1996, striking off the defence of the petitioner, has never been challenged by the petitioner, at any point of time. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not have sought any permission to file the written statement. At first instance, he should have challenged the order dated August 22, 1996, striking off his defence.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the present revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

March 08, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika JUDGE


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.