Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ARUN KUMAR MALHOTRA versus RAJ KUMAR MALHOTRA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Arun Kumar Malhotra v. Raj Kumar Malhotra & Ors - CR-2189-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 2371 (18 April 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, At Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 2189 of 2006

Date of Decision: 21.4.2006.

Arun Kumar Malhotra ...Petitioner

Versus

Raj Kumar Malhotra and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITAL
Present:- Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,J.

In this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India prayer is for setting aside the order dated 11.3.2006, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, on an application filed by respondent No.1, under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for impleading him as the legal representative of deceased plaintiff Dr. Sardari Lal Malhotra.

The learned trial Court after considering the matter allowed the said application. No error or any illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel in the aforesaid order. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. No ground to interfere in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution has been made out. There is no merit in the revision petition. The same is dismissed.

April 21, 2006. ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)

Anoop JUDGE

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 2196 of 2006

Date of Decision: 21.4.2006.

Santosh ...Petitioner

Versus

Sarswati Devi ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITAL
Present:- Mr. Sarvjit Singh Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,J.

In this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer is for quashing impugned order dated 27.3.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, whereby the application for impleading District Election Officer, Panchayat and State of Haryana through Collector/Deputy Commissioner as party has been allowed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to pin- point any illegality in the impugned order. No prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner by the aforesaid order. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.

April 21, 2006. ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)

Anoop 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.