IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.4758 of 2008
Date of decision:02.03.2009
Ram Jeet Mauria ...Petitioner
versus
Nirmala Devi ...Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN
Present: Mr.Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rishav Jain, Advocate with Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate
for the respondent.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
K.Kannan, J.(Oral)
1. The revision is against an order passed on 14.09.2007
by the trial Court disposing of the application under Order 33 Rule 1
CPC permitting the petitioner to sue as an indigenous person and also
granting decree for the plaintiff as prayed for. That order was challenged
in appeal before the District Judge, Patiala and he had passed an order on
21.05.2008 finding fault with the trial Court in disposing of the
application under Order 33 Rule 1 relating to indigency along with the
merits of the claim claimed in the suit. While disposing of the appeal, the
order that was passed by the District Judge reads as follows:-
“The parties through their counsel are directed to
appear before the lower court on 14.6.2008. Lower court
file be sent back immediately and appeal filed be consigned
to the record room.”
Civil Revision No.4758 of 2008 -2-
2. By virtue of the order dated 21.05.2008, the order
passed on 14.09.2007 is superseded and that there cannot be a foundation
for a revision to this Court.
3. The order dated 14.09.2007 does not any longer
survive after an order was passed by the District Judge, Patiala on
21.05.2008 and a revision is not permissible against order dated
14.09.2007.
4. The revision is not maintainable and dismissed as
such.
(K.KANNAN)
JUDGE
02.03.2009
sanjeev