TEJA SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH
LAWS(P&H)-1981-3-14
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on
March 16,1981
TEJA SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
QUEEN V. MAYOR AND JUSTICES OF BODMIN [REFERRED TO]M. R. CHANNARAYAPA V. TAHSILDAR AND RETURNING OFFICER,MALUR [REFERRED TO]
DARYAO HURMAT S O SATWA MAHENDRA LAL JAINI ROOP CHAND BRUHAN KUMAR SADASHIV RAMCHANDRA DALVI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
P D SHARMA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF COCHIN PORT TRUST VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE COCHIN PORT TRUST [REFERRED TO]
HOSHNAK SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BANSI VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS [REFERRED TO]
RAM KALA VS. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS PUNJAB ROHTAK [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
PARVEEN KUMARI & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-8-43] [REFERRED TO]NATIONAL EDUCATION COMPANY VS. ESTATE OFFICER [LAWS(P&H)-2004-5-143] [REFERRED]
HON BLE SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT BADRUKA COLLEGE OF COMMERCE AND VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1996-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MAGANSINHJI MEDATIA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-1472] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI JYOTIRMOY PAUL & ANR. VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2012-8-126] [REFERRED TO]
P.H.C.M. GANDHI PRESIDENT RICA EMPLOYEES UNION (AITUC) (REGISTRATION NO.953/NAT) MANITHANEYAKOODAM 17, SINDHU GARDEN GANDHI NAGAR, VELLORE VS. THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF THE ACADEMY OF PRISONS & CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATIONS, THORAPADI, VELLORE [LAWS(MAD)-2017-1-166] [REFERRED TO]
O P BHATIA VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(P&H)-1996-9-229] [REFERRED]
KUSHAL SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS, PUNJAB, JULLUNDUR [LAWS(P&H)-1984-12-72] [REFERRED]
AL-CAN EXPORT PVT. LTD VS. PRESTIGE H.M. POLYCONTAINERS LTD [LAWS(SC)-2024-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
T SEBASTIAN VS. REGIONAL MANAGER INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1996-4-51] [REFERRED TO]
RAJWANT KAUR MATTA (SMT.) VS. ARORA FEED MILLS AND ANR. [LAWS(P&H)-1991-3-106] [REFERRED TO]
DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY VS. NARESHBHAI KALIDAS PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-1998-8-58] [REFERRED TO]
PURAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(PAT)-1996-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORI SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(PAT)-1985-4-12] [FOLLOWED ON]
MALWA BUS SERVICE (P), LTD., MOGA DISTRICT FARIDKOT VS. THE CANTONMENT BOARD, FEROZEPUR CANTT AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1982-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR PATERIYA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2023-1-132] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER GUPTA VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2011-12-199] [REFERRED TO]
AJMER SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DITRICT JUDGE, SANGRUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1986-2-67] [REFERRED TO]
SURESHBHAI SUVALAL JAYSWAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
SAT PRAKASH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2005-5-146] [REFERRED]
ALAK SAHA AND FOUR ORS. VS. TRIPURA GRAMIN BANK AND UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(GAU)-1993-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1982-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, KURUKSHEHTRA UNIVERSITY VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT [LAWS(P&H)-2001-8-142] [REFERRED TO]
JAGTAR SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS, PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1984-5-136] [REFERRED]
RAJ KUMAR PATERIYA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-267] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIMATI MASSAN DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1993-12-55] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI BUS SERVICE VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-7-109] [REFERRED TO]
TARA DEVI VS. MUKHYA CHIKITSA ADHIKARI [LAWS(ALL)-1996-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH MATHEWS VS. BLUEBELLS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL [LAWS(DLH)-2020-7-47] [REFERRED TO]
K.J. JOSEPH VS. K.S.E.B. [LAWS(KER)-1994-10-62] [REFERRED TO]
GIRDHARI LAL VS. CHAIRMAN B B M BOARD [LAWS(P&H)-1985-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
INDERJIT POULTRY FARM VS. STATE BANK OF PATIALA [LAWS(P&H)-2002-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-1999-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
B.K. SHARMA & 7 ANR. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-4-76] [REFERRED TO]
N C MAHENDRA VS. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(P&H)-1983-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ISMAIL NAJAR VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2013-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN GOEL VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
K S E B VS. KJ JOSEPH [LAWS(KER)-1994-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER KUMAR VS. NORTHERN RAILWAY [LAWS(P&H)-1991-1-198] [REFERRED]
VICTOR INDUSTRIES VS. BANARASI LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2006-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJSTAR INSULATION FIBRE COMPANY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-11-84] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI NARAYAN & ORS VS. KAMAL GARG & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-333] [REFERRED]
PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LIMITED MILKFED VS. M M MUNJAL [LAWS(P&H)-1995-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
K.V. SHIVAKUMAR VS. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES [LAWS(KAR)-2016-6-351] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Prem Chand Jain, J. -
(1.)Whether provisions of the Civil P. C. would apply to the writ proceedings, is the prime and important question which falls for our determination in these cases.
(2.)I do not propose to refer to the facts of the cases which have been set down for hearing before us as for answering the aforesaid question it is not necessary to do so and that each case will have to be gone into on its own facts by the Bench before which the cases will go back, in the light of the answer returned by us to the aforesaid question. But the circumstances which necessitated the reference may be stated.
(3.)C. W. P. No. 1522 of 1973 came up for hearing before a Division Bench on November 23, 1978, when an argument was advanced on behalf of the contesting respondents that the provisions of the Civil P. C. applied to writ proceedings as has been provided under Rule 32 of the Writ Jurisdiction (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Writ Rules): and that in view of the provisions of O. 23, R. 1 of the Civil P.C., C. W. P. No. 1522 of 1973 was not maintainable as in respect of the same cause of action the earlier petition, C. W. No. 1064 of 1973 was got dismissed as withdrawn without obtaining permission to file a fresh petition. In L. P. A. No. 269 of 1979, which came up for hearing before another Division Bench,. the objection that was raised on behalf of the respondents was that the writ petition had abated as the sole petitioner had died and his legal representatives were not brought on the record within the prescribed period of limitation. In other words, the question agitated before the Bench was that provisions of O. 22 applied to writ proceedings.
(2.)I do not propose to refer to the facts of the cases which have been set down for hearing before us as for answering the aforesaid question it is not necessary to do so and that each case will have to be gone into on its own facts by the Bench before which the cases will go back, in the light of the answer returned by us to the aforesaid question. But the circumstances which necessitated the reference may be stated.
(3.)C. W. P. No. 1522 of 1973 came up for hearing before a Division Bench on November 23, 1978, when an argument was advanced on behalf of the contesting respondents that the provisions of the Civil P. C. applied to writ proceedings as has been provided under Rule 32 of the Writ Jurisdiction (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Writ Rules): and that in view of the provisions of O. 23, R. 1 of the Civil P.C., C. W. P. No. 1522 of 1973 was not maintainable as in respect of the same cause of action the earlier petition, C. W. No. 1064 of 1973 was got dismissed as withdrawn without obtaining permission to file a fresh petition. In L. P. A. No. 269 of 1979, which came up for hearing before another Division Bench,. the objection that was raised on behalf of the respondents was that the writ petition had abated as the sole petitioner had died and his legal representatives were not brought on the record within the prescribed period of limitation. In other words, the question agitated before the Bench was that provisions of O. 22 applied to writ proceedings.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.