Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PANCHAYAT SAMITI TANDA versus PIARA SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Panchayat Samiti Tanda v. Piara Singh - RSA-940-2006 [2007] RD-P&H 393 (15 January 2007)

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

C.M.No.2347-C of 2006 and

RSA.No.940 of 2006

DATE OF ORDER: 22.1.2007

Panchayat Samiti Tanda

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

Piara Singh

....Respondent(s)

CORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL .*.*.*.

Present: Mr. M.S. Rahi, Advocate.

Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate.

M.M. AGGARWAL,J

This appeal had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. There was delay of 148 days and that an application had been filed for condoning that delay.

The appeal is against judgment 29.4.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby appeal filed by the defendant- respondent was accepted and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

The facts of the case are that plaintiff, now appellant had filed suit for recovery of Rs.2,68,515/- with interest against Piara Singh defendant-respondent, who was earlier Panchayat Secretary.

C.M.No.2347-C of 2006 and #2#

RSA.No.940 of 2006

According to the plaintiff-appellant, this Piara Singh was to retire on 1.6.1989 but he played fraud and somehow continued till 31.5.1995 and had drawn salary etc wrongly for that period.

That suit was decreed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Dasuya to the extent of recovery of Rs.45633/- with proportionate costs. Both the parties had filed appeal, which was disposed of vide impugned judgment dated 29.4.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. Suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, it is argued that the defendant had played fraud.

Even if it had been so, defendant-respondent continued working with the plaintiff and had been paid only for the period he had worked. There is now delay in filing the appeal. No law point is involved.

Delay in filing the appeal is not condoned.

No merit. Dismissed.

January 22, 2007 ( M.M. AGGARWAL )

manoj 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.