Nirmala Devi v. Rohit Goyal And ORS.

2024:PHHC:014561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CR No.603 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.02.2024 Nirmala Devi .....Revisionist-Petitioner.

Versus

Rohit Goyal and others .....Respondents.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA ***** Present:- Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the revisionist-petitioner. MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.(Oral) CM No.1870-CII of 2024 The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant-petitioner-defendant No.1 with the prayer to bring the LRs of respondent No.4-Rakesh Kumar on the record, while averring that the said respondent had expired on 31.01.2020. The applicant has filed her affidavit along-with the present application.

Heard.

Keeping in view the above-discussed facts and circumstances, the proposed LRs namely Veenu Goal, Upasana Goal and Nageshwar Goal, as mentioned in para No.2 of this application, are allowed to be impleaded as the Legal Representatives of respondent No.4, subject to all the just exceptions and only for the limited purpose of the adjudication of the main revision-petition.

The application in hand stands disposed of accordingly. YAG DUTT 2024.02.13 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CR No.603 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:014561 CR No.603 of 2024 By filing the instant revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for the issuance of the direction to learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam (for short, 'the trial Court'), to decide Civil Suit No.255 of 2017 titled as 'Rohit Goal Versus Nirmala Devi and others', within some specific time-frame, while averring that the afore-said Suit is pending since the year 2017 and she, being a senior citizen, is facing great hardship due to the delay in the decision thereof.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner in the present revision-petition, at the preliminary stage and have also gone through the file carefully.

3.

Keeping in view the fact that the above-mentioned Civil Suit is pending adjudication for the last about 61⁄2 years and also the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen, aged about 79 years and without commenting or expressing any opinion on the merits of the Civil Suit under reference, the revision-petition in hand is, hereby, disposed of with a direction to the concerned trial Court to expedite the proceedings in the afore-said Civil Suit and to decide the same, in accordance with law, as early as possible. (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) February 02, 2024 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether Reportable:

No YAG DUTT 2024.02.13 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment