C.O.C.P. No.1333 of 2007 Present: Shri Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. R.S. Kundu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has filed an affidavit of Raman Gaur, IAS, Commissioner, Higher Education, Haryana and as per the averments made in para 2 thereof, the benefit of military service has been granted towards pension to late Shri Harikesh, Gram Sachiv. The delay in compliance of the order dated 19.5.2006 passed by this Court, has also been explained. In this view of the matter, I do not deem it appropriate to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. Consequently, this petition is disposed of. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1629 of 2007 Present: Shri P.L. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. R.S. Kundu, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has filed an affidavit of R.S. Dalal, Director General of Police, Haryana and as per the averments made in para 3 thereof, the Compassionate Financial Assistance to the tune of Rs.2.50 lacs has already been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner vide Office order dated 15.1.2008 (Annexure R-1). Learned State Counsel further informs that the actual payment shall also be made to the petitioner very soon but later than 15 days. In this view of the matter, no further action is required to be taken in these proceedings. This petition is accordingly disposed of. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.1641 of 2008 Present: Shri Namit Kumar, 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 24.4.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Miscellaneous No.1159 of 2008 IN CWP No.13340 of 2006 Present: Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Notice to the Advocate General, Punjab. Shri G.S. Cheema, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties and keeping in view the interim order dated August 24, 2006 passed by the Division Bench, whereby recovery from the petitioner has already been stayed, this application is disposed of with a direction that though the pension and leave encashment benefits, earlier granted to the petitioner, may be re-fixed, however, the consequential recovery, if any, shall not be made. C..M. Stands disposed of. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Miscellaneous No.1493-CII of 2008 in C.O.C.P. No.429 of 1987 Present: Shri Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let notice of this application be issued to the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab. Shri G.S. Cheema, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice. As prayed for by him, adjourned to 17.3.2008. Meanwhile, let Learned Counsel for the Petitioner furnish the names and addresses of the present incumbents to the office of :- (i) President of the Managing Committee of the College; and (ii) Principal of the College, within one week and let thereafter show cause notice be issued to both of them for the date already fixed, i.e., 17.3.2008. They are also directed to remain present in Court. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.124 of 2008 Present: Shri V.K. Kataria, 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 24.4.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No. 125 of 2008 Present: Shri S.S. Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Let four copies of this petition be handed over to Shri G.S. Cheema, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, during course of the day, who shall have instructions in the matter on the adjourned date. Adjourned to 13.3.2008. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.126 of 2008 Present: Shri S.K. Sud, Advocate, for the petitioners. 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 3.4.2008. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.127 of 2008 Present: Shri Anupam Bhardwaj, 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 22.4.2008. Personal appearance shall, however, remain exempt till further orders. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge C.O.C.P. No.128 of 2008 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 3.4.2008. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No.477 of 2008 Present: Shri Virender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. It is, inter-alia, contended that instead of setting aside the election, recount could be done by excluding all the illegally polled votes. Notice of motion for February 11, 2008. Dasti Meanwhile, fresh election to the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhoot Majra shall not be held, however, the petitioner is also restrained from performing the duties of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat till further orders. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No.488 of 2008 Present: Shri Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Notice of motion for February 20, 2008. The execution proceedings shall remain stayed, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent by way of demand draft towards litigation expenses of this case. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.475 of 2008 Date of decision: January 25, 2008. Jogi Ram & Others ...Petitioner(s) v. Smt. Kishni & Another ...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 Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 26.7.2007 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, who, on an appeal preferred by the respondent – plaintiff against the order dated 23.3.2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, whereby her application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was dismissed, has allowed the appeal and has restrained the petitioner – defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondent – plaintiff over the suit property. Briefly stated, Smt. Phulli Devi, widow of Jasmat, died intestate on 12.7.2007. While some of the immovable properties were donated by her to different religious/charitable institutions during her life- time, land measuring 47 kanals 18 marlas continued to be owned by her. The controversy in the present suit pertains to ownership and possessory rights over the said land. While the respondent – plaintiff claims to be the sister of Jasmat, namely, husband of Smt. Phulli, the petitioner – defendants have propounded a Will dated 20.5.2002 allegedly executed by Smt. Phulli Devi in their favour. The mutation regarding inheritance of Smt. Phulli Devi was sanctioned in favour of the respondent – plaintiff. However, relying upon certain records of the revenue and canal authorities, the petitioners asserted their possession over the suit land. This led the respondent – plaintiff to file the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The learned trial court, however, having declined ad-interim injunction to the respondent – plaintiff, she preferred an appeal which has since been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge vide the impugned order. Even from the cursory look of the impugned order, it is discernible that the learned appellate court has gone into depth and detail of the matter. The fact that the revenue authorities have already rejected the Will dated 20.5.2002 allegedly being a fabricated document and have held the respondent – plaintiff as the sole legal heir of deceased Phulli Devi, makes out a prima-facie case in favour of the respondent – plaintiff. There is also no quarrel that if the alleged Will does not found favour, in that event the respondent – plaintiff alone is entitled to inherit the estate of Smt. Phulli Devi. As far as the entries in the revenue and/or canal authorities' records are concerned, the learned appellate court has observed and rightly so that the entries in the khasra girdawris were firstly made in favour of the respondent – plaintiff only, however, the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, vide his order dated 31.1.2006, ordered correction thereof in favour of the petitioner – defendants. The said order has been passed during the pendency of the civil suit, therefore, is hit by the doctrine of lis pendense. In these circumstances, the well known conclusions, that:- (i) a prima facie case in favour of the respondent – plaintiff is made out; (ii) the balance of convenience is in her favour being the natural successor of Smt. Phulli Devi; and (iii) in case she is forcibly dispossessed, then she would suffer irreparable loss also, having been rightly drawn on the basis of material on record of the case, no interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is made out. Dismissed. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.494 of 2008 Date of decision: January 25, 2008. Paramjit Kaur & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. Ashok Kumar ...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 Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - In this Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek stay of warrants of possession issued by the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar in favour of the respondent in execution of the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2007 passed by the said Court. It may be noticed that the petitioners as well as the Union of India through Ministry of Defence, filed their respective civil suits seeking declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 21/22 July 1998 executed in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of the property bearing No.16, The Mall, Jalandhar Cantt. is null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. A third civil suit was filed by respondent No.1 alleging, inter- alia, that he was in possession of the subject property being owner thereof on the strength of the above stated sale deed and the present petitioners be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. Later on, a decree of possession was also sought by the respondent No.1. All the three suits, referred to above, have been decided by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar vide his judgment and decree dated 17.8.2007 whereby the civil suits filed by the petitioners herein and the Union of India have been dismissed whereas the suit for possession filed by respondent No.1 has been decreed. The petitioners have preferred an appeal against the above stated judgment and decree along with an application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC for the grant of ad-interim stay. It is averred by them that though the appeal has been admitted and notice in the stay application has been issued, the respondents have been seeking adjournments, one after the other, and the stay application is now fixed for hearing on 8.2.2008. Meanwhile, it is alleged that the respondent has filed execution application and has obtained warrants of possession in terms of the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.8.2007 of the learned Civil Court. Obviously, if the decree is allowed to be executed, the rights of the petitioners in the pending appeal are likely to be jeopardized. Consequently and having regard to the fact that the said application is now listed before the learned District Judge on 8.2.2008, I do not deem it necessary to issue any notice of motion and rather direct that till the said application filed by the petitioners in the first appeal is decided by the learned District Judge, execution of the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.8.2007 passed by the learned Civil Court shall remain stayed. Disposed of. Copy dasti on usual charges. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.435 of 2008 Date of decision: January 25, 2008. Mahinder Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Bhagwan Dass & 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 J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 26.7.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon whereby the respondent – plaintiffs have been permitted to amend their suit. The facts may be noticed briefly. The suit for possession was originally filed by Smt. Maya Devi, widow of Duli Chand. The petitioner as well as the respondents are her sons. After the death of Smt. Maya Devi, two of her sons, namely, Bhagwan Dass and Rajinder Kumar, were brought on record as legal heirs. Thereafter, they sought an amendment of the plaint on the ground that at the time of filing of the suit, the western portion of the house, shown in green colours with letters ABFE in the site plan, was in possession of Om Parkash, one of their brother, who was running his tailoring shop in the said portion. However, the possession thereof has now been forcibly taken over by the defendants (including the petitioner) on 3.9.2004, i.e., during the pendency of the suit. The aforementioned application for amendment has been allowed by the learned trial court after observing that “it is a subsequent event which has taken place during the pendency of the suit”. On the other hand, the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that the portion in dispute was already in his possession as disclosed by him in the written statement also, therefore, no 'subsequent event' has taken place to justify the impugned amendment. After hearing Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I do not find any merit in this Revision Petition. In my considered view, mere amendment of the suit does not mean that the learned trial court has decided the question as to whether or not the portion on the western side was earlier in possession of Om Parkash or it has now been taken over by the petitioner – defendants. The afore-said issue is still open between the parties. No case to interfere with the impugned order is, thus, made out. Dismissed. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.483 of 2008 Date of decision: January 25, 2008. M/s Water & Power Consultancy Services (India) Ltd. ...Petitioner(s) v. M/s International Building & Furnishing Company (CAL) Pvt. Ltd. & Another ...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 Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 9.1.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon whereby the petitioner's evidence has been closed after observing that despite second last opportunity, no evidence was brought. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the Award dated 16.12.2006. In the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner has been given sufficient opportunity to lead its evidence, however, no evidence having been led despite second last opportunity, the impugned order has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge. While assailing the aforementioned order and in order to show its bona fides, it is contended that the petitioner's Counsel, Shri Ram Avtar Gupta, was contesting the elections to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and due to his pre-occupation in the said elections, no evidence could be produced on 25.8.2007, 16.10.2007 and 19.11.2007. After hearing Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and going through the impugned order, I am of the considered view that no fault can be found with the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead its entire evidence. It may be stated her that notice of motion is not being issued to respondent No.1 for the aforesaid limited purpose as no immeasurable prejudice is likely to be caused to it if one more opportunity, as sought for by the petitioner, is granted to it to lead its evidence, more so when the said respondent can be suitably compensated in terms of costs. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, the order dated 9.1.2008 is set aside and the learned Additional District Judge is directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner, however, subject to the condition that:- (i) the entire evidence shall be produced by the petitioner on its own responsibility; and (ii) the petitioner shall also pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.1. It will be desirable if the opportunity to lead evidence to the petitioner is granted after 2.2.2008, i.e., the date when the case is already fixed. Disposed of. Dasti on usual charges. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge Civil Revision No. of 2008 C.O.C.P. No. of 2008 Present: Shri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Shri R.S. Kundu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Shri , Advocate, for the respondents. January 25, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge