Pawan Kumar And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 26 November, 2009

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


                    Civil Writ Petition No.231 of 2008
                   Date of decision: 26th November, 2009


Pawan Kumar and another
                                                               ... Petitioners
                                  Versus
Union of India and others
                                                            ... Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA


Present:     Mr. Mandeep S. Sachdev, Advocate for
             Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
             Mr. Mehtab Singh, Advocate for
             Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.2.
             Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate for respondent No.4.


KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

Counsel for the petitioner prays that he be permitted to

withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the appellate

authority to seek review of the observation made “it is not disputed that

the land in question is classified as B-3 owned by the Cantonment Board”.

Learned counsel further submits that in the grounds of appeal, he had

taken following specific stand:

“7. That no proper opportunity of being heard was
given to the appellant by the learned lower Court, which has
resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is worth to mention here
that the appellant got recorded his statement in examination in
chief and the case was adjourned for cross examination as
counsel for the respondent was not present and there after the
case was adjourned for several dates for the respondent. But
on the date, when the counsel for the appellant was not
feeling well and the appellant made a request for adjournment
Civil Writ Petition No.231 of 2008 2

of case as his counsel was not present on that day, the
learned lower Court inspite of adjournment of case, closed the
evidence of the appellant by order, which is a hard step taken
by the learned lower Court against the appellant. Moreover,
the appellant had also moved an application for summoning
the witnesses, but no order was passed on the said
application for summoning the witnesses of the appellant and
hence the appellant has condemned unheard and in case the
appellant would have been given proper opportunity to lead
evidence, the result of the case would have been different and
thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside in view of the
facts submitted in this para.”

Learned counsel submits that even this argument has not

been dealt with by the appellate authority.

A perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority

shows that this argument was never raised. Counsel for the petitioner

prays that on this score also, he be permitted to file review application.

Counsel may file review application before the appellate

authority.

Counsel for the respondents submits that in case review

application is filed within 15 days after receipt of certified copy of this

order, they will not oppose the condonation of delay in filing review

application.

As prayed, dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty aforesaid.

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
November 26, 2009
rps