Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.3734-C of 2014 in RA-RS No.5-C of 2014 in Rs.No.5079 of 2012 Date of decision: 26th March, 2014 Ramesh Chander Applicant/Appellant Versus Mangat Ram Non-Applicant/Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.
Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.Ramesh Chander, Applicant/Appellant in person.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
(ORAL) Appellant had filed the instant suit for declaration claiming himself to be the owner in possession setting up his title over the suit property on the plea of adveRs.possession.
He had also placed reliance upon an agreement to sell in his favour.
However, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2009.
FiRs.appeal filed by him against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 01.05.2012.
Singh Rattan Pal 2014.03.28 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court CM No.3734-C of 2014 in 2 RA-RS No.5-C of 2014 in Rs.No.5079 of 2012 Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgments and decrees of the Courts below, he filed Rs.No.5079 of 2012, which was also dismissed by this Court vide its judgment and decree dated 08.10.2013.
At this stage, it may be noticed that the appellant was being represented in this appeal by Mr.Hitesh Sood, Advocate.
Thereafter, the appellant moved a review application i.e.RA-RS No.5-C of 2014 by engaging a new counsel, Mr.G.R.Nagar, Advocate.
However, the said review application was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2014.
Now the instant application, i.e.CM No.3734-C of 2014 has been filed by the appellant in person seeking modification/correction of the order dated 04.02.2014 to the effect that the review application be dismissed as not maintainable instead of not pressed.
The instant application for modification/correction of the order has been filed by the appellant submitting that he had not authorized his counsel to get the review application dismissed as not pressed.
Admittedly, the applicant-appellant had given Vakalatnama in favour of his counsel, who had filed the review application and had argued and thereafter had withdrawn the said application.
This Court is of the opinion that once a Lawyer has been engaged, he has the authority to make any prayer suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case on behalf of his client.
Thus, the instant application is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the same is hereby dismissed with costs which are Singh Rattan Pal 2014.03.28 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court CM No.3734-C of 2014 in 3 RA-RS No.5-C of 2014 in Rs.No.5079 of 2012 assessed at `20,000/-.
The applicant-appellant is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of costs with the High Court Legal Services Authority within one month from today.
In case, the costs are not deposited, the same shall be recovered by the aforesaid Authority from the applicant-appellant in accordance with law.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE March 26, 2014 rps Singh Rattan Pal 2014.03.28 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court