Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

OM PARKASH versus SMT. NIRMALA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Om Parkash v. Smt. Nirmala & Ors. - CR-1819-2001 [2006] RD-P&H 2987 (8 May 2006)

Civil Revision No.1819 of 2001 -: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.1819 of 2001

Date of decision: May 12, 2006.

Om Parkash

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Smt. Nirmala & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

This revision petition has been directed against an order dated 10.10.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal whereby he accepted an appeal against the order passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal vide which an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC moved by the respondent-plaintiffs was declined. Vide the aforesaid impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge restrained the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, along with his co-defendants, from dispossessing the respondent-plaintiffs from the land in dispute.

On September 3, 2001, while issuing notice of motion and after taking notice of the contention that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property and his possession is reflected in the revenue record, this Court directed that status quo regarding possession as it existed on that day, be maintained.

It appears from the record that the service is complete.

Civil Revision No.1819 of 2001 -: 2 :-

However, on 9.10.2003, none appeared on behalf of the parties and the case was adjourned sine-die. Thereafter, it has been taken up for final disposal.

Since the order to maintain status quo as it existed on September 03, 2001 was passed by this Court about five years back, there is every likelihood that during the interregnum, the main suit itself has been decided.

Be that as it may, since the order to maintain status quo has remained operative for a sufficiently long period, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction that if the civil suit is still pending, then the order dated September 03, 2001 passed by this Court shall remain operative till its decision. However, if the civil suit has already been finally decided, both the parties shall abide by its outcome.

Disposed of.

May 12, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan 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.