IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 19132 of 2008
Date of Decision: 19. 11. 2008
Kamlesh Girdhar ...... Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
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?
***
M. M. Kumar, J.
On 10.11.2008 we have passed the following order:-
” During the course of arguments, two queries were
posed to the learned counsel for the petitioner on account of
delay in responding to the offer of possession made by the
respondents. Firstly, we asked the learned counsel as to
whether the petitioner had adequate amount available with her
when the instalments were required to be deposited because
she has deposited 10% of the amount of Rs. 72, 000/- on
1.12.1998 and Rs. 1,08,000/- i.e. 15% on 6.1.1999 and
7.1.1999. The next instalment was required to be paid on
11.12.1999 amounting to Rs. 2,17, 139/- and the next
instalment on 11.12.2000 of equivalent amount was required to
be paid. The petitioner is required to show that till 2001 she
had adequate amount to meet the demand of payment of
instalment. Secondly, the petitioner is also required to furnish
the proof that she had ever sent representation dated 3.7.2001
(Annexure P-3) because admittedly the same has not been sent
CWP No. 19132 of 2008 -2-
under the registered AD cover.
List again on 19.11.2008.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner requests for further time to
enable him to place on record the necessary information and documents.
However, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to file a fresh writ
petition after placing on record the information required by order dated
10.11.2008 or any other additional information, which the petitioner may
file in support of the petition.
Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner
to file a fresh one on the same cause of action.
(M. M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
November 19, 2008
sunita