Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KULWANT SINGH versus JAGIR SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KULWANT SINGH v. JAGIR SINGH & Ors - CR-2233-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 27 (6 January 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CIVIL REVISION NO. 2233 of 2003

DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 20, 2006

KULWANT SINGH .........PETITIONER

VERSUS

JAGIR SINGH AND OTHERS ..........RESPONDENTS COARM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.

PRESENT:- Shri Vikas Sagar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Jaspal Kaur, Advocate for the respondents.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 15.02.2003 whereby the execution of ex parte judgment and decree dated 9.1.1999 has been stayed.

One Jagir Singh was the owner of 1/3rd

share of land in

dispute. The petitioner, his son, obtained an ex parte judgment and decree of declaration on 9.1.1999 that he is the owner in possession of the said share.

Respondent No.4 herein filed an application for setting aside the said ex parte judgment and decree. The applicant, who is daughter of Jagir Singh CIVIL REVISION NO. 2233 of 2003 [2]

and sister of the petitioner, has filed an application for stay of the execution of aforesaid ex parte judgment and decree. Learned trial Court has stayed the execution of the said decree after considering the registered Will executed by Jagir Singh in her favour and finding that she has a right to contest the ex parte judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner.

The question whether the decree was rightly passed in favour of the petitioner is a question which could be decided after the parties led their evidence on application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure by respondent No.3. Till such time the application is decided, the learned trial Court was justified in law in granting stay of execution of the ex parte judgment and decree.

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

Dismissed.

JANUARY 20, 2006 ( HEMANT GUPTA )

ks 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.