As per case facts, the petitioner, a company, instituted a civil suit challenging an electricity theft charge and an assessed payment. The trial court fixed the matter for the petitioner-plaintiff's ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CR-2836-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-2836-2025
Decided on 29.07.2025
Pickup Honda, Faridabad through its Director ...... Petitioner
Versus
D.H.B.V.N. through S.D.O. (Op.), Sub Division No.1, N.I.T. Faridabad (Haryana)
...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
***
Present: Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL , J (ORAL)
The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, assails the order dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure P-4), passed
by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad vide which evidence of
the petitioner-plaintiff was closed and it was ordered that the examination-in-chief
of PW-1 would not be read in future.
2. A civil suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent and
mandatory injunction (Annexure P-1) was instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff
against the respondent-defendant. The petitioner-plaintiff was charged with theft
of electricity and was called upon to pay the assessed amount of `7,77,589/-
alongwith compounding amount of `90,000/-, failing which the electricity
connection of the petitioner-plaintiff would be disconnected. Final order of
CR-2836-2025 2
assessment in this regard was also passed leading to the filing of the suit.
3. The suit was opposed by way of written statement (Annexure P-2).
4. After issues having been framed, while the matter was fixed for
evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff, its evidence was closed by order on 13.01.2025
(Annexure P-4), leading to the filing of the instant revision petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is
very harsh and shall gravely prejudice the rights of the petitioner. Learned counsel
has referred to all the interlocutory orders and has submitted that the non-
conclusion of evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was not intentional but was
bonafide. He submits that only one witness i.e. PW-1 is to be examined whose
examination-in-chief already stands recorded. He also submits that costs imposed
by the trial Court also stand paid.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner but find the same to be devoid of merit.
8(i). Here, the petitioner is a Company which instituted a suit in 2022.
Though the order vide which issues had been framed has not been placed on
record, order dated 11.04.2022 shows that the matter was fixed for the evidence of
the petitioner-plaintiff. It is not known as to since when it was fixed for evidence.
Be that as it may, thereafter, no evidence was produced for a number of dates.
Repeatedly costs were imposed but were not paid for a number of dates. It was
only on 02.12.2024 that one witness Sanjay (PW-1) appeared and his examination-
in-chief was recorded. His cross-examination was deferred whereafter the said
CR-2836-2025 3
witness again did not appear on a number of dates. Again, repeatedly, costs were
imposed but were not paid.
8(ii). To properly appreciate the matter, the interlocutory orders need to be
reproduced:-
“ Order dated 11.04.2022
Present: Shri Bhupesh Joshi, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Shri Gopal Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the defendant.
Case received by way of transfer. It be checked and
registered.
No evidence of plaintiff is present. Adjournment
sought by counsel for plaintiff. Request heard and allowed. Now,
case is adjourned to 11.07.2022 for evidence of plaintiff, at own
responsibility.
Date of Order: 11.04.2022
Farman (Shivani Rana)
Civil Judge (Junior Division)
UID NO . HR00519
Order dated 11.07.2022
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Adv. For defendant.
No PW is present. Adjournment requested by Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff. Heard. Allowed. Case is adjourned to
7.10.2022 for evidence of plaintiff.
Date of Order: 11.7.2022
Shashi Bala (Shivani Rana)
Civil Judge (Junior Division)
UID NO . HR00519
CR-2836-2025 4
Order dated 07.10.2022
Present: None.
File taken up today as the under-signed is proceeding
on casual leave on 7.10.2022. Consequently, the matter/case is
adjourned to 21.11.2022 for the purpose already fixed. Intimation
about the next date of hearing be also sent to the parties through
their respective counsel by SMS facility of the CIS system.
Date of Order: 7.10.2022
Shashi Bala (Shivani Rana)
Civil Judge (Junior Division)
UID NO . HR00519
Order dated 21.11.2022
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Adv. For defendant.
No PW is present. Adjournment requested by Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff. Heard. Allowed,subject to cost of Rs. 200/-
to be paid in DLSA. Case is adjourned to 11.1.2023 for evidence
of plaintiff.
Date of Order: 21.11.2022
Shashi Bala (Shivani Rana)
Civil Judge (Junior Division)
UID NO . HR00519
Order dated 11.01.2023
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Advocate for the plaintiff
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the defendant
In compliance of office Endst. No.8644-8649-D.3
dated 12.04.2021, passed by the Hon’ble District & Sessions
Judge, Faridabad, file put up before me being the link court of
Ms. Shivani Rana, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-cum- Judicial
CR-2836-2025 5
Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, as she is on Medical leave from
02.01.2023 to 17.01.2023.
Previous cost of Rs.200/- not paid by the plaintiff in
DLSA, Faridabad. No plaintiff witness is present today.
Adjournment sought by learned counsel for the plaintiff. Heard
and allowed. Now to come upon 22.03.2023 for evidence of
plaintiff, at own responsibility. Previous cost of Rs.200/- be also
paid in DLSA, Faridabad by the plaintiff on the date fixed.
Date of Order: 11.01.2023
Mohit Sardana (Anuradha-I)
Link/Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Faridabad, UID NO . HR0531
Order dated 22.03.2023
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Adv. for plaintiff.
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Adv. for defendant.
In compliance of office Endst. No.8644-8649-D.3
dated 12.04.2021, passed by the Hon’ble District & Sessions
Judge, Faridabad, file put up before me being the link court of
Ms. Shivani Rana, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-cum- Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, as she is on casual leave for
22.03.2023.
Previous cost of Rs. 200/- not paid. No PW is present
today. Adjournment sought. Heard and allowed. Now to come up
on 10.07.2023 for evidence of plaintiff, at own responsibility.
Previous cost of Rs. 200/- and additional cost of Rs. 500/-, total
cost of Rs.700/- to be paid to the DLSA by the plaintifff.
Date of Order: 22.03.2023
Mayank Asopa (Anuradha-I)
Link/Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Faridabad, UID NO . HR0531
CR-2836-2025 6
Order dated 10.07.2023
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Adv. for plaintiff.
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Adv. for defendant.
Previous cost of Rs. 700/- not paid. No PW is present
today. Adjournment sought. Heard and allowed. Now to come up
20.10.2023 for evidence of plaintiff, at own responsibility.
Previous cost of Rs. 700/- to be paid in DLSA by the plaintiff.
Date of Order: 10.07.2023
Mayank Asopa (Shivani Rana)
Civil Judge (Junior Division)
UID NO . HR00519
Order dated 20.10.2023
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the defendant.
In compliance of office Endst. No.8644-8649-D.3
dated 12.04.2021, passed by the Hon’ble District & Sessions
Judge, Faridabad, file put up before me being the link court of
Ms. Shivani Rana, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-cum- Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, as she is on leave.
Previous cost of Rs. 700/- not paid. No evidence of the
plaintiff is present. Adjournment has been requested. Heard and
allowed. Now to come up on 09.02.2024 for evidence of the
plaintiff, at own responsibility. Previous cost of Rs. 700/- to be
paid in DLSA by the plaintiff on the date fixed.
Date of Order: 20-10-2023
Honey (Anuradha-I)
L/Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Faridabad
UID No. HR00531
CR-2836-2025 7
Order dated 09.02.2024
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the defendant.
In compliance of office Endst. No.8644-8649-D.3
dated 12.04.2021, passed by the Hon’ble District & Sessions
Judge, Faridabad, file put up before me being the link court of
Ms. Shivani Rana, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-cum- Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, as she is on leave.
Previous cost of Rs. 700/- not paid. No evidence of the
plaintiff is present. Adjournment has been requested. Heard and
allowed. Now to come up on 09.05.2024 for evidence of the
plaintiff, at own responsibility. Previous cost of Rs. 700/- to be
paid in DLSA by the plaintiff on the date fixed.
Date of Order: 09-02-2024
Honey (Anuradha-I)
L/Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Faridabad
UID No. HR00531
Order dated 09.05.2024
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Advocate for plaintiff.
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Advocate for defendant.
Previous cost paid and taken on record. No PW is
present today. Again adjournment requested. Heard and allowed.
Now to come up on 10.07.2024 for evidence of plaintiff, to be
produced at own responsibility.
Date of Order: 09.05.2024
Mayank Asopa (Deepak Yadav)
Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Faridabad, UID No. HR00652
CR-2836-2025 8
Order dated 10.07.2024
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Advocate for plaintiff.
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Advocate for defendant.
No PW is present today. Again adjournment
requested. Heard and allowed. Now to come up on 11.09.2024 for
evidence of plaintiff, to be produced at own responsibility.
Date of Order: 10.07.2024
Mayank Asopa (Deepak Yadav)
Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Faridabad, UID No. HR00652
Order dated 11.09.2024
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Advocate for plaintiff.
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Advocate for defendant.
No PW is present today. Again adjournment
requested by learned counsel for plaintiff. Heard and allowed.
Now to come up on 16.10.2024 for evidence of plaintiff, to be
produced at own responsibility.
Date of Order: 11.09.2024
Mayank Asopa (Deepak Yadav)
Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Faridabad, UID No. HR00652
Order dated 16.10.2024
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Advocate for plaintiff.
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Advocate for defendant.
No PW is present today. Again adjournment
requested by learned counsel for plaintiff. Heard and allowed,
subject to cost of Rs.1000/- to be paid to defendant by plaintiff on
the next date of hearing. Now to come up on 04.11.2024 for
CR-2836-2025 9
evidence of plaintiff, to be produced at own responsibility.
Date of Order: 16.10.2024
Mayank Asopa (Deepak Yadav-I)
Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Faridabad, UID No. HR00652
Order dated 04.11.202 4
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Advocate for defendant.
No evidence of the plaintiff is present. Adjournment
sought. Heard and allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.
1000/- to be paid by plaintiff in DLSA. Now to come up on
13.11.2024 for evidence of the plaintiff, at own responsibility. It
shall be the last and final opportunity.
Date of Order: 04-11-2024
Honey (Deepak Yadav)
Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Faridabad
UID No. HR00652
Order dated 13.11.2024
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Advocate for plaintiff.
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Advocate for defendant.
No PW is present today. Learned counsel for plaintiff
requested for an adjournment as sister of plaintiff has been died.
Heard and allowed. Now to come up on 02.12.2024 for evidence of
plaintiff, to be produced at own responsibility, failing which
evidence of plaintiff shall be deemed to be closed on the fixed
date. This shall be last and final opportunity. Previous cost of Rs.
1000/- to be paid in DLSA by plaintiff on the date fixed.
Date of Order: 13.11.2024
Mayank Asopa (Deepak Yadav-I)
Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Faridabad, UID No. HR00652
CR-2836-2025 10
Order dated 02.12.2024
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Advocate for plaintiff.
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Advocate for defendant.
Previous cost not paid. One PW namely Sanjay is
present and examined-in-chief as PW1. His cross-examination is
deferred due to copy of affidavit supplied today. His cross-
examination is recorded by LC and fee of LC paid. No other PW
is present today. Adjournment sought. Heard and allowed. Now
to come up on 17.12.2024 for cross-examination of PW1 as well as
remaining evidence of plaintiff, to be produced at own
responsibility. Previous cost of Rs. 1000/- to be paid in DLSA by
plaintiff on the date fixed.
Date of Order: 02.12.2024
Mayank Asopa (Deepak Yadav-I)
Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Faridabad, UID No. HR00652
Order dated 17.12.2024
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Advocate for plaintiff.
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Advocate for defendant.
No PW is present today. Adjournment sought. Heard
and allowed, subject to cost of Rs. 2000/- and previous cost of
Rs.1000/-, thus, total cost of Rs. 3000/- to be paid in DLSA by
plaintiff on next date of hearing. Now to come up on 19.12.2024
for cross-examination of PW1 as well as remaining evidence of
plaintiff, to be produced at own responsibility. This shall be last
and final opportunity.
Date of Order: 17.12.2024
Mayank Asopa (Deepak Yadav-I)
Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Faridabad, UID No. HR00652
CR-2836-2025 11
Order dated 19.12.2024
Present: Sh. Bhupesh Joshi, Advocate for plaintiff.
Sh. Gopal Dutt Sharma, Advocate for defendant.
No PW is present today. Adjournment sought. Heard
and allowed, subject to additional cost of Rs. 1000/- and previous
cost of Rs. 3000/-, thus, total cost of Rs. 4000/- to be paid in DLSA
by plaintiff on next date of hearing. Now to come up on
13.01.2025 for cross-examination of PW1 as well as remaining
evidence of plaintiff, to be produced at own responsibility. This
shall be last and final opportunity.
Date of Order: 19.12.2024
Mayank Asopa (Deepak Yadav-I)
Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Faridabad, UID No. HR00652”
8(iii). Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’)
deals with adjournments. Order XVII Rule (1) CPC lays down that the Court may,
if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit, grant time to the parties or to
any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons
to be recorded in writing. Provided that no such adjournment would be granted
more than three times to a party during hearing of the suit.
8(iv). Courts are flooded with litigation and pendency of cases is a topic of
discussion everywhere. On account of the sheer volume of cases, Courts also, at
times, tend to grant adjournments in a liberal manner. However, if one goes
through the interlocutory orders, it emerges that the petitioner-plaintiff sought
adjournments in the most brazen manner and violated the procedure and the
process of law with impunity. Costs imposed by the Court were not paid for
CR-2836-2025 12
many dates. Even when the impugned order was passed, costs imposed on 3-4
dates in succession had not been paid and they were paid only after the impugned
order was passed which would be of no relevance.
8(v). In the case of Shri Anand Parkash Vs. Shri Bharat Bhushan Rai
and another 1982 (1) RCR (Rent) 1, Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court was
dealing with a similar issue. A suit for recovery was filed by one Anand Parkash
against Bharat Bhushan Rai and Another. Before the evidence of the plaintiff
could be recorded, an application was filed on behalf of the defendants that
defendant No.2 had died and as her LRs were not brought on record, the suit had
abated. The factum of death was admitted by the plaintiff but the date of death was
disputed. Parties were directed to lead evidence about the date of death of
defendant No.2-Smt. Dhanvantri Devi. After some evidence had been led, the case
was adjourned to 23.08.1978 for remaining evidence. On this date, an
adjournment was prayed for on behalf of the defendants on the ground that the
counsel had gone out of station. The prayer for adjournment was granted subject
₹to payment of 35/- as costs. The defendants stated that they did not wish to pay
the costs as they were not wanting to lead any evidence. An application was filed
by the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Sections 151 and 35-B CPC to
the effect that since the defendants had refused to pay the costs intentionally in
order to delay the proceedings, they be debarred from prosecuting their defence
any further. The trial Court accepted the said plea and held that that the defendants
could not be allowed to further prosecute their application but the plea of the
plaintiff that the defence be struck off was negatived.
CR-2836-2025 13
8(vi). However, the Hon’ble Full Bench held that where costs had
deliberately not been paid, the defence on the whole would be struck off. The
relevant part of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-
“3. Anand Parkash petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.
400/- against Bharat Bhushan Rai and another, defendants. Before
the evidence of the plaintiff could be recorded, an application was
filed on behalf of the defendants to the effect that Smt. Dhanvantri
Devi, defendant No. 2, had died and as her legal representatives
were not brought on the record, the suit had abated. The plaintiff
admitted the factum of the death of Smt. Dhanvantri Devi but
disputed the date of death as given by the defendants, with the
result that the parties were directed to led evidence about the date of
the death of Smt. Dhanvantri Devi. After some evidence was led, the
case was adjourned for recording the remaining evidence of the
parties, to August 23, 1978, on which date an adjournment was
prayed for on behalf of the defendants on the ground that their
counsel had gone out of station. The prayer for adjournment was
granted by the court subject to the payment of Rs. 35/- as costs and
the case was adjourned to August 30, 1978, for the evidence of the
parties. On august 30, 1978, the defendants stated that they did not
wish to pay the costs as they were not wanting to lead any evidence.
On this an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 18,
Rule 17, read with Sections 151 and 35-B of the Code of Civil
procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) to the effect that the
defendants had refused to pay the costs of Rs. 35/- intentionally in
order to delay the proceedings in the suit and that the defendants
were debarred from prosecuting their defence any further. The
other prayer made under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code with which
we are not concerned in this petition was that the plaintiff be
allowed to be recalled as a witness. The application was opposed on
CR-2836-2025 14
behalf of the defendants. The learned subordinate Judge, on
considering the entire matter, came to the conclusion that as the
defendants had failed to pay the costs, they could not be allowed to
further prosecute their application dated July 27, 1977, the plea of
the plaintiff that the defence of the defendants be struck off, was
negatived. It is earlier observed, against that order of the learned
subordinate Judge that the present revision petition has been filed.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
Xxx xxx xxx xxx
In order to effectively deal with the matter, it would be appropriate
to notice the provisions of Section 35-B of the Code, which read as
under:--
"35-B. Costs for causing delay. If, on any date fixed for the
hearing of suit or for taking any step therein, a party to the
suit:-
(a) fails to take the step which he was required by or under
this code to take on that date, or
(b) obtains an adjournment for taking such step or for
producing evidence or on any other ground, the Court may,
for reasons to be recorded, make an order requiring such
party to pay to the other party such costs as would, in the
opinion of the Court, be reasonably sufficient to reimburse
the other party in respect of the expenses incurred by him in
attending the Court on that date, and payment of such costs,
on the date next following the date of such order, shall be a
condition precedent to the further prosecution of-
(a) the suit by the plaintiff, where the plaintiff was ordered to
pay such costs. (b) the defence by the defendant, where the
defendant was ordered to pay such costs.
Explanation:-Where separate defences have been raised by
CR-2836-2025 15
the defendants or groups of defendants, payment of such
costs shall be a condition precedent to the further prosecution
of the defence by such defendants or groups of defendants as
have been ordered by the Court to pay such costs.
(2) The costs ordered to be paid under sub-section (1), shall
not, if paid, be included in the costs awarded in the decree
passed in the suit; but, if such costs are not paid, a separate
order shall be drawn up indicting the amount of such costs
and the names and addresses of the persons by whom such
costs are payable and the order so drawn up shall be
executable against such persons.
"xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
19. The admitted facts of the case are that an adjournment was
sought for leading evidence on the application that was filed with a
prayer that as Sm. Dhanvantri Devi, defendant No. 2, had died, the
suit had abated. The application was contested. As the date of death
of Smt. Dhanvantri Devi was disputed the parties were allowed to
lead evidence. The defendants led some evidence ad for the
remaining evidence. The case was adjourned to 23rd of August,
1978. On this date evidence was not led and an adjournment was
sought on the ground that the counsel had gone out of station. The
adjournment was granted on payment of Rs. 35/- as costs and the
case was adjourned to 30th of August, 1978, for the evidence of the
parties on which date instead of paying the costs and leading
evidence the counsel for the defendants gave statement that he did
not want to pay the costs as he had not to lead any evidence. In view
of this statement an application was filed under Section 35B of the
Code praying that the defendants be debarred from prosecuting the
defence any further. The learned trial Court allowed the application
CR-2836-2025 16
only to the extent that the prosecution of the application was
debarred. The order of the trial Court has been challenged through
this revision petition.
20. There can be no gain-saying that adjournment was sought for
leading evidence on the application which was a step taken in the
suit. The learned Sub Judge acted illegally and with material
irregularity is disallowing the prosecution of the application only.
The act of the defendants in refusing to pay the costs were
contumacious. On the admitted facts straightaway a case for taking
penal action against the defendants had been made out. The trial
Court acted illegaly and with, material irregularity in debarring the
defendants from prosecuting the application only. The impugned
order of the trial Court cannot be legally sustained.
21. Consequently, I allow this revision petition, set aside the order
of the trial Court dated 6th September, 1978 and hold that as the
costs were not paid by the defendants, they are debarred from
prosecuting their defence any further. In the circumstances of the
case, I make no order as to costs. The parties through their counsel
are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20th July 1981.
22. I have the privilege of perusing the detailed and lucid judgments
recorded by my learned brothers Jain and Sharma, JJ. With
greatest deference to the view expressed by Sharma, J. I agree with
Jain, J.
23. In accordance with the majority decision it is held that in the
event of the party failing to pay the costs on the date next following
the date of the order imposing costs, it is mandatory on the Court to
disallow the prosecution of the suit or the defence, as the case may
CR-2836-2025 17
be and that no other extraneous consideration would weigh with the
Court in exercising its jurisdiction against the delinquent party.
However, where the costs are not paid as a result of the
circumstances beyond the control of the defaulting party then the
Court will be well within its jurisdiction to exercise its power under
section 148 of the Code in favour of the defaulting party if a strong
case is made out for the exercise of such jurisdiction.
24. The revision petition is allowed and the order of the trial Court
dated 6th September, 1978, is set aside and the defendants are
debarred from prosecuting the defence any further. In the
circumstances of the case the parties to bear their own costs.
25. The parties through their learned counsel have been directed to
appear before the trial Court on 20th July, 1981.
After the judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench, a number of judgments by
Coordinate Benches of this Court, while following the judgment of the Hon’ble
Full Bench have reiterated the aforesaid principle of law. In the case of “Rajender
Vs. Ishwar Singh”, 2020 (1) RCR (Civil) 784, the costs imposed for non-filing of
written statement had not been paid as a result of which the defence was struck
off. The said decision was upheld by the High Court while referring to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench.
9. It is time that such careless, callous and lackadaisical approach is not
granted any premium by giving one more opportunity with payment of costs.
That being so, I do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with
the impugned order. As a consequence thereof, the revision petition is found to be
CR-2836-2025 18
devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
29.07.2025 ( VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....