IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.1278 of 2007 Date of decision: January 22, 2008. Rajinder Kaur ...Petitioner(s) v. Jagtar Singh Khatra ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Sukhdev Singh Kanwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - The petitioner filed CWP No.79 of 2007, which, like the CWP No.18733 of 2006 (Mahesh Kumar v. State of Punjab) decided on 27.11.2006, was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on January 09, 2007 with a direction to the Director Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab, “requiring him to take a final decision on the representation, to be made by the petitioner”. The petitioner was required to submit her representation within 7 days. The petitioner did make a representation which was disposed of by the 1st respondent vide his order dated 27.6.2007 observing that the petitioner has applied for the post of Social Studies Mistress in the reserved category of Dependents of Ex-Servicemen (female) and since some posts are lying vacant in the said reserved category, “the department will consider the claim of the petitioner against vacant posts available under the reserved category of Ex-Serviceman dependent female along with other cases on the basis of their merit...”. The petitioner is still aggrieved and has filed this contempt petition. On 13.9.2007, Learned State Counsel was asked to seek instructions in the matter. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit of Jagtar Singh Khatra, Director of Public Instructions (S.E.), Punjab has been filed, which is taken on record. In para 5 thereof, the deponent has stated that, “some posts of Social Studies Mistresses under the category of Ex-Serviceman (Dependent) Female are lying vacant and the Department is in the process of filling up such posts and claim of the petitioner for one of these vacant posts shall be considered along with other eligible candidates.”. In the light of the above-mentioned stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner's claim is being considered along with other eligible candidates, in my view, no case to initiate the contempt proceedings is made out, except to direct the respondents to expedite the ongoing selection process and conclude the same as early as possible and preferably within three months. Disposed of. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1733 of 2007 Present: Shri J.S. Maanipu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Relies upon the police report (Annexure P-14) and contends that notwithstanding the order of status quo, the respondents have deliberately and willfully reaped the sugar-cane crop. Let notice of motion issue to the respondents to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against them, returnable on 3.4.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1724 of 2007 Present: Shri P.L. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let three copies of this petition be handed over to Shri R.S. Kundu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 27.3.2008. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1736 of 2007 Present: Shri Arun Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let notice of motion issue to the respondents to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against them, returnable on 21.4.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Miscellaneous No.873-CII of 2008 in Civil Revision No.4943 of 2006 Present: Shri Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioners. The prayer in this application is to permit the petitioners to effect service upon respondent No.5 through publication in the local newspaper. It is stated that respondent No.5 has gone abroad and despite several efforts made by the petitioners, they are unable to effect service upon him. On a query by the Court, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that the owner of the delinquent vehicle was one Manmohan Singh, who has since died much before filing of the Claim Petition. The said Manmohan Singh is duly represented by his widow and two minor daughters, namely, respondents No.2 to 4. In these circumstances and in order to examine the legality of the impugned order dated 23.8.2006 passed by the MACT, I do not deem it appropriate to effect service upon respondent No.5. Her services are accordingly dispensed with and as a consequence thereto, the application is also rejected. Dismissed. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.93 of 2008 Present: Shri Ramesh Sindhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. It appears from the record that the directions issued by this Court vide order dated October 21, 2005 passed in CWP No.12167 of 1999 qua the petitioner have not been complied with so far. With a view to enable Shri R.S. Kundu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana to have instructions in the matter, adjourned to 25.3.2008. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.94 of 2008 Present: Shri Ajay Tewari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let three copies of this petition be handed over to Shri R.S. Kundu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 25.3.2008. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.96 of 2008 Present: Shri Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let three copies of this petition be handed over to Shri R.S. Kundu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 25.3.2008. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.97 of 2008 Present: Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let notice of motion issue to the respondent to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against him, returnable on 3.4.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.98 of 2008 Present: Shri Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let two copies of this petition be handed over to Shri R.S. Kundu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 25.3.2008. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No.354 of 2008 Present: Shri Arun Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. It is, inter-alia, contended that the petitioner is in actual physical possession of the disputed premises and is running his business therefrom. It is further contended that the respondent – landlord is an old person of about 75 years of age and all his sons being well settled in their respective business, the plea of bona fide personal necessity is a mere device to seek the petitioner's eviction. Notice of motion for 27.3.2008. Meanwhile, subject to the petitioner depositing entire arrears of rents upto 28.2.2008, his dispossession from the subject premises shall remain stayed. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Crl. Misc. No.51872-M of 2007 Present: Shri BBS Sobti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. The previous bail application moved by the petitioner was not decided on merits and was rather disposed of with a direction to the learned trial court to conclude the ongoing trial as early as possible and preferably within three months. In this view of the matter, let this petition be listed as per roster after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN CWP No.3463 of 1988 Present: Shri Gurnam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Despite an opportunity given on October 10, 2007, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has not furnished the fresh addresses of the unserved respondents No.4 and 5. From the perusal of memo of parties, it is apparent that the above stated unserved respondents are/were the employees of SYL Canal Project, Irrigation Department, Govt. of Punjab. In this view of the matter, Learned State Counsel is directed to find out as to whether or not the above stated respondents are still in service and if so, their present place of posting. Adjourned to 13.3.2008. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No.1639 of 2004 Present: Shri B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, Assistant Solicitor General of India. From last several occasions, unsuccessful efforts have been made to serve respondent No.1, which is the Union of India. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, however, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. In this view of the matter, the service is complete. Adjourned to 24.3.2008 for arguments. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4927 of 2005 Date of decision: January 22, 2008. Hazura Singh & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. Smt. Rachhpal Kaur & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Kuldeep Sanwal;, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Mandeep S. Bedi, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 11.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 27.8.1996 passed by the learned trial court, has been dismissed being barred by limitation. Vide the impugned order, the learned first appellate court has found that there was an unexplained delay of 225 days in filing the appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioners – defendants have filed this Revision Petition. It may also be noticed here that the aforementioned appeal was preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and decree passed in a case of suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as damages and compensation as a result of a fatal accident. In order to test the bona fides of the petitioners, this Court, vide order dated 13.11.2007, directed Learned Counsel for the Petitioners to seek Civil Revision No.4927 of 2005 -2- instructions as to whether the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the amount of compensation as decreed by the learned trial court as a condition precedent for condoning the delay in filing of the first appeal. In deference thereto, Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the said amount provided some reasonable time is granted by this Court. Mr. Mandeep S. Bedi, Learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4, has taken a fair stand and submits that if the petitioners deposit the amount of compensation with the learned trial court within some reasonable time, the contesting respondents shall have no objection against condonation of delay in filing of the first appeal by the petitioners. In the light of the above stated stand taken by Learned Counsel for the parties, this Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 11.3.2005 passed by the learned first appellate court is set aside; delay in filing of the first appeal by the petitioners is hereby condoned and the matter is accordingly remitted to the learned first appellate court to decide the same afresh on merits, however, subject to the condition that the first appeal preferred by the petitioners shall be decided preferably in the month of May, 2008, only after they deposit the entire decretal amount with the learned trial court on or before 30.4.2008. The parties are directed to appear before the learned first appellate court on 28.2.2008. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge