Suman Kumar Bawa v. Neena Rani And ORS

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

CHANDIGARH C.R. No.783 of 2016 Date of Decision.04.02.2016 Suman Kumar Bawa .......Petitioner Vs.

Neena Rani and others ......Respondents

Present:

Mr. Anil Chawla, 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.

The written statement was not filed within 90 days on account of the fact that there was application pending for consideration on whether the plaintiff should be permitted to prosecute the suit as indigent person under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC or not . Till such persmission is granted, the suit cannot be taken as having been instituted and 90 days time will begin to run only after the petition is converted as a suit. The order already passed is set aside. The Court will grant time for filing written statement after consideration of the issue whether the plaintiff should be permitted to prosecute the case as indigent person or not. 2.

I dispense with notice to the respondents and proceed to dispose of the revision petition on the above observations. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 04, 2016 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.02.05 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document