BIRDEVINDER SINGH (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS) v. RAJVIR KAUR @ BHINDERJIT KAUR AND ANR.
CR/5747/2022 · 2025-09-02
Vikas Bahl
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 96071 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 96071 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CR-5747-2022(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***
CR-5747-2022(O&M)
Date of decision : 02.09.2025
Birdevinder Singh (now deceased) through his legal heir
... Petitioner
Versus
Rajvir Kaur alias Bhinderjit and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Charanpuneet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for respondent no.1.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
CM-17149-CII-2025
This is an application under Section 151 CPC for restoration of the revision petition which was disposed of.
For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the order dated 21.08.2025 is recalled and the main petition is ordered to be restored to its original number. CR-5747-2022
1.
This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the order dated 19.11.2022 Davinder Kumar 2025.09.02 17:38 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order /
judgment
CR-5747-2022(O&M) 2
(Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Faridkot vide which the objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the objections raised by the petitioner have been dismissed by the Executing Court and the petitioner does not wish to challenge the impugned order and has prayed that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to move a fresh objection application on an aspect which has not been earlier raised.
3.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the prayer made by the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file an appropriate application in accordance with law.
4.
It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits, maintainability or otherwise of the said application and in case any such application is filed, the same would be decided in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE September 02, 2025. Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned
Yes/No
Whether reportable
Yes/No Davinder Kumar 2025.09.02 17:38 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order /
judgment