Manish Bansal And ANR v. Ut Of Chandigarh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos.10385-10386-CI of 2016 in/and RA-RF No.531-CI of 2016 in RFA No. 1101 of 2014 Date of decision: 19.09.2016 Manish Bansal and another ... Appellants Vs.

Union Territory, Chandigarh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for the applicant-respondent.

***** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (ORAL) Applicant seeks permission to lead additional evidence by way of C.M. No.10386-C1 of 2016 and also seeks condonation of delay of 104 days in filing the review application, besides seeking review of the order and judgment dated 02.02.2016 passed by this Court in RFA No. 1101 of 2014. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, it becomes specifically clear that the additional evidence, on the basis of which instant review application has been filed, was not part of the record nor it was brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing on 02.02.2016. Applicant seeks to produce additional evidence to make it a ground for review, which is not permissible in law.

Amit Kumar 2016.09.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2In view of the above, both these applications as well as the review application are wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, these must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Dismissed.

[ RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ] 19.09.2016 JUDGE AK Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Amit Kumar 2016.09.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document