IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 3456 of 2009
Date of Decision: June 09, 2009
Dharam Pal ...... Petitioner
Versus
Suresh Kumar and others ...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.Amit Kumar Jain, 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?
Ajay Tewari, J.
This revision has been filed against an order rejecting an
application for additional evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that during
the pendency of the civil suit for permanent injunction that he is a tenant on
the property in dispute and that he should not be dispossessed except in due
course of law, the respondents have been convicted of offences under
sections 457/411/447/427 IPC in relation to the same property. He has
argued that this evidence clearly reveals that the petitioner was in
possession on the date the suit was filed. The learned trial Court has
rejected the application on well reasoned and cogent grounds holding that
firstly, the conviction is subject to appeal and that secondly, the civil suit
Civil Revision No. 3456 of 2009 -2-
would necessarily have to be decided on the basis of evidence which would
be led in the trial and thus would be much more relevant than this
conviction order.
In my opinion there is no perversity or illegality in the
impugned order.
Consequently this revision is dismissed. No costs.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
June 09, 2009
sunita