High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRA-CR/44/2017allowed

Karan Sood v. M/S Key Pee Industries And Others

2017-03-30Mr. Justice Amit Rawal2 pages

RA No.44-CII-2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA No.44-CII-2017 (O&M) IN C.R. No.2370 of 2016 Date of decision :30.03.2017 Karan Sood ... Petitioner

Versus

M/s Key Pee Industries and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for Mr. Hittan Nehra, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

**** AMIT RAWAL , J. (ORAL) C.M. No.7201-CII of 2016 Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner submits that against the order of dismissal of the revision petition, the applicant-petitioner had preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed and thereafter had availed the remedy of suit and did not envision that the defendant in the newly instituted suit would come up with the plea of provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is in this backdrop of the matter, delay of 357 days occurred in filing the review application. I am of the view that the explanation given above is fair and just. Resultantly, the delay of 357 days in filing the review application is condoned.

Application is allowed.

C.M. No.7202-CII of 2017 Application is allowed.

PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.04.05 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RA No.44-CII-2017 -2Exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-6 is granted and the same are taken on record.

R.A. No.44-CII of 2017 The prayer in the application is for modification of the order dated 01.04.2016 on the premise that the suit for specific performance on behalf of the applicant-petitioner before the trial Court under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC has been filed and objection has been taken on behalf of the defendant-respondent by taking the aid of provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The basis of the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is on account of observations given by this Court with regard to provisions of Section 19(2)(g) of the Partnership Act, 1932. In my view, such an application moved shall be decided by the trial Court uninfluenced with the findings rendered by this Court.

The review application is disposed of with the above observations.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE March 30, 2017 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2017.04.05 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document