Ram Kishan Yadav v. State Of Haryana And ORS
!"#$%"&'('#)*+ ,+ -.'(/ ) % 0 +++"!'!'#)"1 2(+ 3! !"#$ 14 ) )%#!/"1( +++"(5#)%")!( * 67 +3 3
3
8+ 7
!!"#!!$ '(
certiorari ) *"
! !*!+ ,- .
/
"
! !*!+ ,- .!/
mandamus ( -
!!
3 4 *! *1 1$* *5
6
inter alia .7( 8 4 % '
*9 *+
!!
: 0 !**!
( (
0 !**5
.7(
*5 *+ !*
(
! %
!!
!!
* !**
< ) ( 0
0 ( (
( *5 *+ !* ! .
7(
:
( .7(
= -
(
" *$ !*!9 %>.
2!95.!*!!
%
.
7( !$ * !*!!
( (
- ; ((
9
(
+ * !*!+
(
*"
! !*!+ ,- .
/ = ( .7(
(
(
3 4 *! *1 1$* *5
"
! !*!+ ,- .!/ .
7(
( ( & '( ) (
( ,- .+/
'
0 = ?
0
@ 4 '
*! *1 1$* *5
+ 7
@
? <0
% 7 .
7 !
+.8<@A7 "
6
7 !
+ ( 0
! !**5 =
( % (
3 4 *! *1 1$* *5
0 !**$
0
: && % %
1*2 , B%%C/
$ &
= ,/ (
; 0 : && %% .
"2. Suit to include the whole claim.-(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish and portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.
(2) Relinquishment of part of claim.-Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.
(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs.-A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.
0 (
4 @ Mithan Lal Gupta
Vs. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4546,
( 5!
> D , <0/
1$" : && %%
mutatis mutandis
( 5!
,supra/ "32. In all matters for which no provision is made by these rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, shall apply mutatis mutandis, in so far as they are not inconsistent with these rules."
;
3 4 ?
0
@ 4 '
*! *1 1$* *5
ad hoc
( 0 (
(( -
.7(
0
( 0 ( 0 0 0 (
&
!!"
0 - <
6
:
0 0
- (
( ( 0 .
D ( @
<F
Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others Vs. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225
"16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles or of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence5 sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In SS Balu v. State of Kerala, this Court observed thus:
"17. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". .... It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment."" , /
Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others, 2024 AIR SC 2717, <C
(
<(
% 0
-( 0 !!"
&
- 0 (
( ( (
% 4 @ Kartar Singh Vs. Managing Director, HVPNL and others, CWP No.26962 of 2015, *+ *+ !*
%. @ Jai Narain Rohilla Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., CWP51167 of 2025
$ * !*!9
&
0 - -0 !!"
( 0
+
(
,/ 0
;3
< !9 *2 !*!9 vishnu > '(# G#7 >
G#7