JAIPRAKASH SINGH HASRAJANI v. SATISH KUMAR CHUGH & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 7 r. 11; s. 151
Judgment
Present : Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
Present revision petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 25.09.2023 (Annexure P-5) dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and the order dated
03.11.2023 (Annexure P-6) whereby last opportunity has been granted to the defendants for cross-examining the witness subject to Rs.2,000/- as costs.
The petitioner herein, before the Trial Court on 12.12.2023, did not cross-examine PW-1 namely, Satish Kumar Chugh, and filed an application for deferring the cross-examination and also filed an application for recalling of the order dated 03.11.2023. The matter is now fixed for
25.01.2023. In the present petition there is not even an averment that an application for recall of the order dated 03.11.2023 has been filed which is also under challenge before this Court in the present petition.
Faced with the same, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition. AMAN JAIN 2024.01.22 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order. 122 CR-302-2024 (O&M) -2-
Dismissed as withdrawn. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
19.01.2024 Aman Jain (ALKA SARIN) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO AMAN JAIN 2024.01.22 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 7 r. 11; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 19 Jan 2024. The bench was ALKA SARIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.