Gurdev Singh v. Kulwant Singh And ORS

C.R. No.1388 of 2013 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1388 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision.22.03.2016 Gurdev Singh .......Petitioner Vs.

Kulwant Singh and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Paras Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondents.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) C.M. No.1682-CII of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 6 days in filing the application for restoration is condoned. Application is allowed.

C.M. No.1683-CII of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application, order passed by this Court on 17.12.2015 is recalled and the revision petition is restored to its original number.

Application is allowed.

C.R. No.1388 of 2013 1.

The description of property which is sought to be brought in for 350 sq. yards is wholly inconsequential to the relief which is claimed. The property of 55 sq. yards had been claimed to be in the possession of PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.03.31 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.1388 of 2013 (O&M) -2the defendant. The property measuring 55 sq. yards which is said to be wrongly possessed by the defendant is properly described by boundaries and there is enough certainty for identifying the property for which the relief is sought. If the Appellate Court has not found it necessary to entertain an application for amendment for giving boundaries for larger extent, I find that there is nothing wrong and the petitioner is not likely to get in any way prejudiced.

2.

The revision petition is dismissed.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 22, 2016 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.03.31 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document