Revision at hc
AAVADHOOT. D
(Querist) 22 September 2013
This query is : Resolved
Respected Sir,
Can Revision Petition be preferred against a HC order in WP(it was staying order of EP in which the order was as mentioned in later,below) passed in Aug 2010? It is not 100% in favor of us. "The Under Ground Drainage is for common use of the parties". It ought to have been ' The Under Ground Drainage is "not" for common use of the parties.'
The word "not" is likely to play imp. role in future against me.
Kindly guide.
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 22 September 2013
HC passed this order in revision or in appeal or in writ????????????
AAVADHOOT. D
(Querist) 22 September 2013
Sir, Modified. it was WP
regards
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 23 September 2013
FILE SLP IN SC.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 23 September 2013
You have the only option to file SLP before Apex Court.
AAVADHOOT. D
(Querist) 25 September 2013
Sir, Thanks. Review/revision? Is it not possible? Its Writ of Certiorari. Order is erroneous. The respondent my father is a Sr Ctz. aged about 80 years. Kindly explore if any remedy at HC.
rgrds
AAVADHOOT. D
(Querist) 25 September 2013
Sir, For your refe.I'm posting facts/order below,
Decided by Ktk HC.SEEKS DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 22/12/2009 IN EP NO.X OF 2008 PASSED BY Ist ADDL.CJ(SrDn)Order-Erroneous- "" Heard argts. on bothsides & perused the entire record.It is not in despute that the preliminry decree in OS.xx/xx ended in passing the final decree in FDP.Further it is not in despute parties are in seperate possesion of house. "Before partition the 3 reidential houses situated in the property in question are connected to a drainage specified in red ink in the sketch. therefore the drainage situated on the western side of petitioner's property donot exclusively belongs to him."(this is nowhere mentioned.infact its contrary.It is completely new pipeline to be laid by defendant for his exclusive use. earlier there was no line here)The drainage is for the common use & enjoyment of all the 3 residents. Therefore the impugned order restraining petitioner from causing obstruction to repair (its not repair infact it should be to lay)the drainage in question is in accordance with law & I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same.
However in the name of repairing the drainage in question, the respondent is no entitled to encroach the property alloted to the share of petitioner & also to extend the width & legth of the drainage in question.
With these above observations, the writ petn is hereby dismissed. ""
The above observations of the Hon Court are contrary to facts & documents on file.
The above matter decided on 25.5.2010 and we received the cert.Copy on 11.6.2010. Since, the drainage laying process is obstructed by an RCC structure the demolition proceedings are still going on and we are unable to stay & enjoy he property.
To correct the Order of the HC, what is the remedy available before us? Review/Revision? or other? What will be te expenses involved approximately? Please guide and help.
