Skip to content


Smt. Pritam Devi and ors. Vs. the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 82 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1970P& H205
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 32, Rule 9 - Order 41, Rule 5
AppellantSmt. Pritam Devi and ors.
RespondentThe Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur and ors.
Appellant Advocate Mela Ram Sharma, Deputy Adv. General
Respondent Advocate H.L. Sarin, Senior Adv.,; A.L. Bahi,; H.S. Awasthi a
Excerpt:
.....a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. .....7, whose case has been represented by their mother as their next friend and guardian. mr. harbans singh gujral was advocate for the applicants. this case had been pending for quite a long time. when it was set in the list for hearing on september 29, 1969, he moved an application on september 25, 1969, that for reasons stated in the application he was not in a position to continue as a counsel for the applicants and wanted an order from the court permitting him to withdraw from the case. his application was allowed on september 26, 1969. when the case came up for hearing on september 29, 1969, a relation of pritam devi, applicant 1, mother of the minor applicants, appeared and said that pritam devi, applicant 1, was ill and he wanted an adjournment for the case to be argued because his.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This reference arises out of Civil Revision Application No. 82 of 1965 under Article 227 of the Constitution, and there are seven applicants out of whom there are five minors, applicants 3 to 7, whose case has been represented by their mother as their next friend and guardian. Mr. Harbans Singh Gujral was advocate for the applicants. This case had been pending for quite a long time. When it was set in the list for hearing on September 29, 1969, he moved an application on September 25, 1969, that for reasons stated in the application he was not in a position to continue as a counsel for the applicants and wanted an order from the Court permitting him to withdraw from the case. His application was allowed on September 26, 1969. When the case came up for hearing on September 29, 1969, a relation of Pritam Devi, applicant 1, mother of the minor applicants, appeared and said that Pritam Devi, applicant 1, was ill and he wanted an adjournment for the case to be argued because his counsel Mr. Gujral had gone to Srinagar. He wanted an adjournment to enable him to have the case argued by Mr. Gujral. The case was adjourned day-to-day, but on the side of the applicants no counsel or party has appeared today. It is because out of the applicants five are minors that we have considered it necessary not to dismiss the application for non-prosecution. Pritam Devi, applicant 1, in the circumstances, is removed from her position as the next friend and guardian of the minor applicants, and we issue notice to their major brother, Gandharb Singh, applicant 2, whether he agrees to represent them in this application as their next friend and guardian and to make arrangement for the prosecution of the application on their behalf. Notice be now issued to Gandharb Singh, applicant 2, for October 27, 1969.

There is a stay order in this case made on February 3, 1965, as confirmed on August 29, 1966, staying dispossession in the case. If in this case Pritam Devi, applicant 1, was the only major applicant, and all the other applicants were under a disability, we might have taken a different view, but there is no justification for applicant 2, Gandharb Singh, who is major and whose interests are the same as those of the other applicants not appearing in this case. It appears to us obvious that these tactics are being employed on their side to have an undue advantage of the stay order, granted by this Court, which has lasted for a little over four years. In the circumstances, the stay order is vacated. This case will now come up on October 27, 1969.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //