IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 889 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 20, 2011 Ram Chander …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SING HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SING HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SING HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 13.5.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the prayer for pre-ponement of hearing. 2. A perusal of the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant shows that he has imputed certain observations made by the learned Single Judge and the advise tendered to the petitioner-appellant. The petitioner-appellant has also pleaded the arguments advanced before the learned Single Judge, which are not part of any proceedings. 3. The petitioner-appellant is posted as Sadar Kanungo in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa. One Amar Singh filed a criminal complaint No. 876-1 of 2007, dated 11.9.2007 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, against the petitioner-appellant in which the petitioner-appellant was summoned along with other co- accused. The summoning order and the complaint was challenged L.P.A. No. 889 of 2011 (O&M) L.P.A. No. 889 of 2011 (O&M) L.P.A. No. 889 of 2011 (O&M) L.P.A. No. 889 of 2011 (O&M) 2 by the petitioner-appellant in CRM No. M-18554 of 2008. The complaint as well as the summoning order has been set aside by this Court on 1.12.2008. Even the SLP has been dismissed against the order passed by this Court. The further allegation of the petitioner-appellant is that another complaint against him has been filed on 9.10.2010 and the complainant also applied for sanction for his prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The Deputy Commissioner-respondent No. 2 granted sanction and the order is subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge. 4. Having heard learned counsel at some length we are of the view that there is no factor present in the instant case which may require immediate hearing of the case. Even otherwise, the learned Single Judge has fixed the matter for 12.8.2011, which is not far off. We also disapprove the course adopted by the petitioner-appellant in presentation of the appeal. The averments made in the memorandum of the appeal concerning the advise given by the learned Single Judge or other related things are not borne out of record. Accordingly, no such averments could be made in the memorandum of appeal. This is a basic rudimentary requirement of the law of pleadings. 5. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed, subject to payment of ` 10,000/- as cost. The cost may be deposited with the Member Secretary, Punjab Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) May May May May 20, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor