Crl. Misc. No.52357-M of 2007 Present: Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. The earlier bail application moved by the petitioner was not decided by me on merits. Let this petition be accordingly listed as per roster after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Crl. Misc. No.338-M of 2008 Present: Shri Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner. The first bail application moved by the petitioner was not decided on merits, rather was disposed of with certain directions. Let this petition be accordingly listed as per roster after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Crl. Misc. No.431-M of 2008 Present: Shri H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the petitioner. This second petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. is stated to have been filed in some changed circumstances. Let the same, therefore, be listed as per roster after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Crl. Miscellaneous No.1126 of 2008 in Crl. Appeal No.1464-SB of 2007 Present: Shri Sandeep Majithia, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. The earlier application for suspension of sentence was dismissed “at that stage”. Let this second application be, therefore, listed as per roster after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Crl. Miscellaneous No.767 of 2008 in Crl. Miscellaneous No.38976-M of 2007 Present: Shri Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the applicant-respondent No.1. In this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant, who was respondent No.1 in the main petition, seeks recalling of the order dated December 6, 2007 whereby on acceptance of the revision petition preferred by the complainant(s), it was held that a prima facie case under section 376/420 IPC was also made out against the applicant-respondent No.1 and accordingly directions were issued to charge-sheet him for the aforementioned offences also. It may be noticed here that in the main petition, the applicant- respondent No.1 did not appear before this Court despite service effected upon him, firstly through his mother and thereafter through the local police, i.e., the SHO of the Police Station concerned. In this application, the applicant-respondent No.1 does not dispute the fact that firstly he got married to one Rosy, resident of Karnal and that their marriage has not been dissolved by a decree of divorce. Similarly, he has conceded the fact that he performed the second marriage with Gurpreet Kaur daughter of Baldev Singh Sodhi and even that marriage has been neither declared null and void nor any decree of divorce was passed. As regards to the third marriage, the applicant-respondent No.1 claims that he was only in a “live-in relationship” with petitioner No.2 (Harjot Kaur), namely, the daughter of petitioner No.1. Crl. Miscellaneous No.767 of 2008 in Crl. Miscellaneous No.38976-M of 2007 -2- Prima-facie, it appears that the applicant – respondent No.1 has been duping one woman after the other, therefore the tentative view formed vide order dated 6.12.2007 that he is guilty of an offence under section 376 read with section 420 IPC, is fully justified. No case to recall the aforesaid order is, thus, made out. This petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.15,000/-, which the applicant-respondent No.1 is directed to deposit in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur so as to enable the trial court to compensate the complainant-victim if upon conclusion of the trail the allegations made against the applicant-respondent No.1 are successfully proved. January 14, 2008. 1 [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.822 of 2007 Present: Shri Kamal Satija, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional AG, Haryana. Shri R.S. Kundu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has filed an affidavit of Suraj Bhan Dhankhar, Under Secretary to Government Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department and along with the same, he has also placed on record an order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the State Government whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be promoted as SDO (Panchayati Raj) with effect from 3.11.1995. In this view of the matter, no further action is called for in this petition, which has been rendered infructuous. Disposed of accordingly. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.992 of 2007 Present: Shri Amit Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Dr. U.S. Dhaliwal, Additional AG, Punjab. The petitioner's claim for the grant of pay scale as admissible to Classical & Vernacular Teachers was allowed by this Court vide order dated April 25, 2006. Instead of complying with the aforesaid direction, one Barjinder Mann, District Education Officer (SE), Bhatinda has filed a reply affidavit stating therein that a review application has been filed for recall of the aforesaid order. Neither the date of filing of the review application nor the fact as to whether any notice has been issued therein, have been mentioned in the affidavit. In these circumstances, last opportunity is granted to Learned State Counsel to get the orders passed by this Court complied with, failing which respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to remain present in Court. Adjourned to 13.3.2008. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1423 of 2008 Present: Shri Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional AG, Haryana. Despite a categoric direction issued by this Court to recover the possession of the Panchayat land from unauthorized occupants and to hand over the same to the Gram Panchayat, neither the said direction has been complied so far nor any explanation for non compliance thereof has been furnished. In the interest of justice, last opportunity is granted to Learned State Counsel to get the direction issued by this Court complied with, failing which:- (i) Deputy Commissioner, Rewari; (ii) Smt. Subita, City Magistrate-cum-Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rewari; and (iii) BDPO of the area concerned shall remain present in Court. Adjourned to 26.2.2008. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1588 of 2007 Present: Shri M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. Dr. U.S. Dhaliwal, Additional AG, Punjab. Learned State Counsel seeks some more time to have instructions in the matter. Adjourned to 26.2.2008. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1586 of 2007 Present: Shri M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. Dr. U.S. Dhaliwal, Additional AG, Punjab. Learned State Counsel seeks some more time to have instructions in the matter. Adjourned to 26.2.2008. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1712 of 2007 Present: Shri D.S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner. Dr. U.S. Dhaliwal, Additional AG, Punjab. Learned State Counsel, on the basis of written instructions received by him, states that the directions issued by this Court have been complied with and PPO dated 7.1.2008 has already been issued in favour of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, no further directions need be issued at this stage except to clarify that the arrears of consequential monetary benefits be paid to the petitioner within one month. Disposed of. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.39 of 2008 Present: Shri N.S. Sodhi, 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 20.3.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.42 of 2008 Present: Shri Ghulam Nabi Malik, 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 20.3.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.43 of 2008 Present: Shri Deepak Sharma, 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 18.2.2008. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.44 of 2008 Present: Shri GPS Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let four copies of this petition be handed over to Shri U.S. Dhaliwal, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 18.2.2008. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.45 of 2008 Present: Shri G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let two copies of this petition be handed over to Shri U.S. Dhaliwal, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 18.2.2008. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6741 of 2007 Date of decision: January 14, 2008. Food Corporation of India ...Petitioner(s) v. Smt. Gurdial Kaur and others ...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 Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18.8.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana whereby an application moved by the respondents under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decreed, has been accepted. The first respondent (Smt. Gurdial Kaur) who is more than 90 years old, is widow of Bhajan Singh and mother of late Gurjant Singh. The second respondent (Smt. Baljit Kaur) is widow of Gurjant Singh. The third respondent (Saman Deep Singh), who was a minor at the relevant time, is the son of late Gurjant Singh. Civil Revision No.6741 of 2007 -2- Late Gurjant Singh, namely, the son, husband and father, respectively, of respondents No.1 to 3 had furnished a tender for being appointed as Handling and Transport Contractor for loading and unloading of stocks at Food Storage Depot, Khanna of the FCI. He is alleged to have deposited the security but failed to perform the work in question which, it is claimed, was later on allocated to some other contractor (at the risk and cost of Gurjant Singh). On this count, it is claimed that the petitioner – Corporation suffered a loss of over Rs.72 lacs. Unfortunately, Gurjant Singh met a tragic end as he along with his two brothers was shot dead by terrorists. Though it is not clear from the record but it appears that Gurjant Singh was murdered during the subsistence of the contract period. Be that as it may, the FCI filed a suit for recovery against the widowed mother, widow and minor son of deceased Gurjant Singh for the recovery of the aforementioned alleged loss of Rs.72 lacs or more. The said civil suit was decreed exparte. When the first respondent was served with sommons on 31.8.2002 in the execution proceedings, then only the respondents are stated to have come to know about the exparte decree passed against them. Respondent No.1 immediately moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which has been allowed by the learned trial court vide the impugned order. While setting aside the exparte decree, the learned Civil Court has taken notice of the fact that Atma Singh, EDDA, i.e., an employee of the Post Office, Mujhi, who is alleged to have made reports on the registered postal notices, is very much alive but has not been produced as a witness. Civil Revision No.6741 of 2007 -3- Instead, the Branch Post Master of the above stated post office has been produced. The learned Civil court has further taken notice of the fact that respondent No.3, who was admittedly a minor was not sued through the natural guardian. No service was, thus, ever effected upon him. Similarly, the learned Civil Court has also observed that the copy of the newspaper in which the alleged Public Notice was got published to effect service upon the respondents, was never sent to them under the postal certificate as required by the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume IV, Chapter 7-B. That apart, the tragic death of three sons of respondent No.1, including Gurjant Singh, and that she is more than 90 years old, have also been taken noticed. In the light of the extraordinary mitigating circumstances and the fact that the respondents were undoubtedly not served or sued validly, the learned trial court has concluded and rightly so that the exparte decree cannot sustain. No interference with the impugned order is, thus, called for. Dismissed. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.175 of 2008 Date of decision: January 14, 2008. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Petitioner(s) v. Smt. Khazani Devi & 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 Vinod Chaudhari, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. impugns the order dated 3.11.2007 passed by the learned MACT, Hissar whereby an application for amendment of the claim petition, so as to scale down the monthly income of the deceased (Gafoor Din) and to bring the same within the ambit of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act has been allowed and the respondent – claimants have been permitted to scale down the monthly income of the deceased from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.3300/- per month. As referred to by the Tribunal in its impugned order, this Court has consistently taken the view that an amendment in the claim petition to scale down the monthly income of the deceased is permissible. Relying upon those binding precedents that the Tribunal has allowed the application. Civil Revision No.175 of 2008 -2- Faced with this situation, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the statements of the respondent – claimants, namely Khazani Devi wife of deceased Gafoor Din (PW1) and Madan @ Mamu Din, son of deceased Gafoor din deceased, (PW2). Both the witnesses have deposed that the deceased used to work as Lohar and earn Rs.250/300 per day. On this premise, it is contended that the deceased used to earn between 7,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per month, therefore also his monthly income, as mentioned in the claim petition, ought not to have been scaled down. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I do not find any merit in the above noticed contention. Both the witnesses have undoubtedly deposed that the deceased used to earn Rs.200/300 per day, however, they have nowhere stated that the deceased used to get work every day throughout the year. In other words, it is only when he would get some work as Lohar that he used to make Rs.250/300 per day but that cannot be construed to mean that the deceased had work in his hand every day throughout the year. In this view of the matter, no interference with the impugned order is called for. Dismissed. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.187 of 2008 Date of decision: January 14, 2008. Gurmej Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Nirmal Singh ...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 C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29.10.2007 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti whereby the petitioner – plaintiff's evidence has been ordered to be closed. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that five opportunities have already been availed by the petitioner to conclude his evidence and thereafter one more, i.e., the last opportunity was granted to him. His evidence, however, still remains inconclusive. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner. He further undertakes that the left out evidence shall be produced by him on that date only. Civil Revision No.187 of 2008 -2- Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and without issuing any notice to the respondent as it may unnecessarily cause hardship to him, more so when no immeasurable loss shall be caused to him, this petition is partly allowed, to the extent that the impugned order dated 29.10.2007 is set aside and the learned trial court is directed to give one more and last opportunity to the petitioner to lead his remaining evidence, however, subject to the conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent – defendant; and (ii) the defendant's evidence has yet not started. Disposed of. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Crl. Miscellaneous No.1126 of 2008 in Crl. Appeal No.1464-SB of 2007 Present: Shri S.S. Rangi, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. The earlier application for suspension of sentence was not decided on merits. Let this application be, therefore, listed as per roster after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Misc. No.25524 of 2006 C.O.C.P. No.924 of 2004 Present: Shri M.K. Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the respondent. Dr. U.S. Dhaliwal, Additional AG, Punjab In deference to the orders dated November 2, 2006 and December 15, 2006, it is stated by Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, and not disputed by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the matter is presently sub judice before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division. It is stated by Mr. Sandhawalia that in order to comply with the principles of natural justice, the court of Commissioner has issued notice to one of the affected party, namely, Lakhbir Singh s/o Mohinder Singh also. In these circumstances, these contempt proceedings are adjourned to 18.3.2008. Meanwhile, the learned Commissioner is directed to dispose of the pending matter in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Dr. U.S. Dhaliwal, learned Additional AG, Punjab for information and necessary compliance. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.627 of 2005 Present: Shri Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the respondents. Vide order dated October 19, 2006, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kaithal was asked to entrust the fact-finding inquiry to the senior-most Civil Judge posted at Kaithal, who, in turn was asked to send a fact-finding report, after hearing both the parties. In deference thereto, a self-speaking inquiry report dated 16.4.2007 has been sent by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the aforesaid inquiry report. Having regard to the conclusions drawn therein, no further action is required to be taken in these proceedings which are accordingly disposed of. Rule discharged. January 14, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.102 of 2008 Date of decision: January 14, 2008. Dr. Ashok Chawla ...Petitioner(s) v. Smt. Bindra Wati ...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 G.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar whereby the application moved by the petitioner to set aside the exparte eviction order dated 16.4.1999 has been dismissed, as well as against the order dated 17.9.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority, upholding the aforesaid order of the learned Rent Controller. The husband of the respondent (late Shri Amar Chand Jain) filed a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of the petitioner from house No.15, Sehdev Market, Opposite P&T Colony, Jalandhar. The petitioner's eviction was sought inter-alia, on the ground that he was in arrears of rent @ Rs.2500/- per month with effect from 1.2.1995, besides house tax @ 15% of the rent; (ii) the petitioner had made material alterations and addition without permission of the landlord and had, thus, diminished the value and utility of the building; and (iii) the petitioner had allegedly constructed a room on the terrace, as was shown in the site plan, and has, thus, impaired the value and utility of the premises. In response to the notice issued by the Rent Controller, the petitioner appeared and filed a written statement in which he also took a preliminary objection to the effect that late Shri Amar Chand Jain – husband of the respondent herein was not owner of the premises and had, thus, no locus standi to file the eviction petition. The petitioner rather asserted himself to be a “licencee” under one S.P. Mohindru. The petitioner also denied the ownership of Bhoj Raj, namely brother of late Amar Chand Jain, who had allegedly died issueless and whose property devolved upon his mother Smt. Jwandi Devi. The learned Rent Controller framed five issues, including issue No.1 as to whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Yet another issue regarding rate of rent and the arrears thereof was also framed. On the basis of evidence on record, which included certain copy of the sale deed dated 17.7.1975 (Ex.A2), it was held by the learned Rent Controller that the subject property was purchased by Bhoj Raj from one Sehdev Singh. The wife of Bhoj Raj pre-deceased him. Bhoj Raj was issueless. After the death of Bhoj Raj, the property was inherited by his mother Jwandi Devi. Subsequently, Jwandi Devi also expired and her estate was inherited by her another son, namely, Amar Chand Jain – respondent/landlord, who was brother of Bhoj Raj. On the basis of these facts on record, the learned Rent Controller held that Amar Chand Jain was the owner of the subject property and was, thus, landlord of the petitioner – tenant. It further appears that even after filing the written statement and taking the above stated preliminary objection, the petitioner chose not to lead any evidence and was proceeded against exparte. Since, there was no evidence on record to dispute the rate of rent, learned Rent Controller held that the same was Rs.2500/- per month, which was admittedly not paid or deposited by the petitioner. An eviction order was accordingly passed on 16.4.1999. The petitioner thereafter moved an application on 21.9.2001 for setting aside the exparte eviction order on the ground that on 30.3.1999 when the date was fixed for his evidence, he attended the court but the file was not traceable. He further averred that he was asked to check the file on the next date but again on the next date when he went to locate the file, the same was not found. Meanwhile, Amar Chand Jain, owner of the property – petitioner in the eviction petition, died on 25.7.1999. The petitioner further averred that he had been “presuming that the petition might have been withdrawn or dismissed but at a later stage the respondent came to know that the petition has been decreed on 16.4.1999”. The above stated application has since been dismissed by the