M/S Rgvp Energy Source v. State Of Haryana And Others

RA-CW-450-2019 in CWP-8982-2015 M/S RGVP ENERGY SOURCE VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Present:

Mr. Ashish Jhamb, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

**** Vide order dated 12.09.2019, main case i.e. CWP No.8982 of 2015 was disposed of with the following directions:- "(i) The petitioner may approach the civil court exercising territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter at Panchkula where the office of HAREDA is located and the record available for inspection and production. They are, thus, relegated to their remedy by way of a civil suit. (ii) The period of time spent in these proceedings prosecuting the case from 4.5.2015 till today by the petitioner shall be exempted under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as the petitioner was pursuing its remedy in this Court bona fide and had obtained an interim order in its favour, provided the suit is filed within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(iii) In case the suit is filed together with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC., the same will be decided in accordance with law within one month from the date of notice in case the petitioner does not seek adjournment. However, the interim order dated 29.05.2015 would continue to operate till orders are passed in the application in the best

RA-CW-450-2019 in CWP-8982-2015 -2judgment and discretion of the trial court. In other words, the interim order dated 29.05.2015 shall remain coterminus with the final orders as may be passed on the application for interim/temporary injunction by the civil court. The trial Court will weigh prima facie all the pros and cons before it proceeds to apply the three well known principles for grant of temporary injunction. (iv) The trial Court will take an independent view at all stages of the suit and not be influenced by the interim order or the fact that this writ petition was disposed of without deciding the case on merits. That will not be regarded as a rejection of any of the submissions made in petition and supported at the hearing today, as this Court came to a conclusion in motion hearing refusing to exercise its discretionary and extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, while leaving the matter to be adjudicated by the civil court.

(v) The trial court will endeavour to dispose of the suit within a year and half or at the most two years from the date of presentation. It will follow the procedure of admission and denial of documents in the CPC to curtail time before it actual frames the issues involved for determination and proceeds to admit evidence on disputed facts alone and other than what stands admitted by the parties.

(vi) The subject matter of the suit will be confined to the pleadings in the present writ petition for purposes of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. However, any other relief based ground taken for the first time in plaint of the suit shall be subject to the laws of limitation etc. and the

RA-CW-450-2019 in CWP-8982-2015 -3objections taken."

Instead of filing a civil suit, even with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner has preferred this review application.

No ground is made out to review the order dated 12.09.2019. The review application is dismissed. (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) JUDGE 28.07.2022 Atik