Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BIMLA DEVI versus SHEELA DEVI & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


bimla devi v. SHEELA DEVI & Anr - CR-4298-1993 [2006] RD-P&H 844 (16 February 2006)

C.R. No. 4298 of 1993.

Present: Shri A.M. Punchhi, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Shri Chetan Mittal, Advocate,

for respondent no.1.

-.-

When the case was called in the morning, Shri Anupam Bansal, Advocate, appearing for Shri A.M. Punchhi, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request for adjournment for about two weeks. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the petitioner has lost upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an earlier round of litigation and the present revision petition is only to gain time to continue with the possession. The request for adjournment was declined. The case was passed over to enable Shri Punchi to appear and argue the matter.

Later in the day, Shri Punchhi appeared and made a request to withdraw from the case on the instructions received from Shri Virender Kumar Kapila, the Attorney of the petitioner. The revision petition was filed by the petitioner through Shri Punchhi way back on 21.10.1993. After 12 years when the matter came up for final hearing, the petitioner has adopted this process of withdrawing the instructions only to gain adjournment. It is most unfortunate on the part of the petitioner. However, Shri Punchhi is permitted to withdraw from the present petition.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that change of counsel at this stage by the petitioner is an interference in the administration of justice.

Let Show Cause Notice be issued to the petitioner to explain as to why appropriate proceedings be not initiated against the petitioner.

Shri Virender Kumar Kapila, Attorney of the petitioner, who is present in Court, accepts notice and seeks time to file reply.

Adjourned to 8.3.2006. Reply, if any, be filed on or before 6.3.2006.

1.3.2006 (Hemant Gupta)

ds 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.