High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
bimla devi v. SHEELA DEVI & Anr - CR-4298-1993  RD-P&H 844 (16 February 2006)
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)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.