Chamkaur Singh v. Lachman Dass & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1817 of 2016 Date of Decision.10.03.2016 Chamkaur Singh .......Petitioner Vs.

Lachhman Dass and another ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

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) 1.

Security offered must be in the appropriate form which is provided under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC and not under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC. There can be no objection to the order passed by the Court below allowing for property security to be given to the value of `3 lacs. If it had already received a surety bond which was in the nature of personal bond, the Court was competent to pass an appropriate order by modifying the same.

2.

I find no cause for interference and dismiss the revision petition but with the above observations.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 10, 2016 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.03.11 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document