Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANTOSH KUMARI & ORS versus SUDESH KUMAR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Santosh Kumari & Ors v. Sudesh Kumar - CR-2553-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 5464 (10 August 2006)

Civil Revision No. 2553 of 2005 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No. 2553 of 2005

Date of Decision: August 29, 2006

Santosh Kumari and others .........Petitioners versus

Sudesh Kumar ..........Respondent

Present:- Shri Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the respondent HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The challenge in the present revision petitioner is to the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 28.03.2005 whereby an application for setting aside of ex parte execution proceedings against the petitioner was dismissed.

It is the case of the petitioner that she has not engaged any counsel for the execution petition and that eviction order has been passed against a dead person and, therefore, eviction order cannot be passed against her. It was stated by the petitioner that an application for setting aside of ex parte eviction order dated 1.3.2001 is pending consideration before the competent court.

Since the eviction order has been passed against the petitioner, the argument sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she has not engaged any counsel in execution is not relevant as decree Civil Revision No. 2553 of 2005 [2]

of eviction has yet not been set aside. Therefore, the said argument is not tenable. The argument that the decree is against a dead person is an argument which is required to be considered by the competent Court of jurisdiction at all at this stage.

Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court on 28.03.2005 warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to seek its appropriate remedy in proceedings for setting aside ex parte eviction order or in any other proceedings.

August 29, 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.