(O&M) Karnail Singh v. Tarlok Singh

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6192 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.04.2016 Karnail Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Tarlok Singh ... Respondent(s)

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shekher Dhawan.

1.

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

Yes To be referred to reporters or not?

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Yes

Present:

Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Shekher Dhawan, J.

Present petition is challenge to the order dated 1.10.2007, whereby learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phillaur, declined prayer of the petitioner for enlargement of time for depositing the balance sale consideration in order to get the sale deed executed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that because of financial constraints, payment could not be made within the stipulated period and thereafter within the extended period of limitation and the Court below did not consider the genuine difficulty of the petitioner and declined his prayer for extension of time. In support of DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.04.08 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Civil Revision No. 6192 of 2007 (O&M) his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case G.Parimala v. Mrs. Bimala Bhatia and Others 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 763.

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G.Parimala's case (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the Court below had already dealt with this case in accordance with law. More so, the Court below had extended the time and petitioner failed to deposit the amount, even within the extended period of limitation. There is absolutely no ground for further extension of time and the Court below has rightly declined the application and on facts, present case is distinguishable from the facts of G.Parimala's case (supra). In view of above, present petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.

(Shekher Dhawan) Judge April 7, 2016 "DK"

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.04.08 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document