PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING

SECTION _________

The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):

 Central Act : (Title) Transfer of Property Act

 Section : Partition and Will

 Central Rule : (Title) ___

 Rule No(s): __

 State Act : (Title) __

 Section : ___

 State Rule : (Title) ___

 Rule No(s): ___

 Impugned Interim Order : (Date) ___

 Impugned Final/Decree : (Date) 07.08.1997

 High Court : (Name) Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

 Names of Judges : Mr. Justice Sat Pal, J.

 Tribunal/Authority : (Name) ___

1. Nature of matter:  Civil  Criminal

2. (a) Petitioner/appellant No.1 : Ram Chand & Ors.

(b) e-mail ID : lawyerajay@gmail.com

(c) Mobile phone number : 9868909761

3. (a) Respondent No.1 : Kartar Chand

(b) e-mail ID : ___

(c) Mobile phone number : ___

4. (a) Main category classification : 18

(b) Sub classification : 1807

5. Not to be listed before : N.A.

6. Similar/Pending matter : N.A.

7. Criminal Matters : N.A.

(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered  Yes  No

(b) FIR No. ____ Date: _____

(c) Police Station : ____

(d) Sentence Awarded : __

(e) Sentence Undergone : __

8. Land Acquisition Matters : N.A.

(a) Date of Section 4 notification : __

(b) Date of Section 6 notification : __

(c) Date of Section 17 notification : __

9. Tax Matters : State the tax effect : N.A.

10. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only) :

 Senior citizen  65 years  SC/ST  Woman/child  Disabled

 Legal Aid case  In custody

11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters) : N.A.

12. Decided cases with citation : ___

Date :

AJAY KUMAR SINGH

AOR for petitioner(s)/appellant(s)

Registration No. 2022

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL /CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
SLP (C)/SLP (CRL.)/CIVIL APPEAL/CRL APPEAL NO. OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Paramjit Singh and Others …..Petitioners

Versus

Kuldeep Singh @ Kuldeep Dass, Chela S/o

Sher Singh Chela Kahan Singh and others

… Respondents

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is/ are within time.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is delay of

_________ days in filing the same against order
dated ______________ and petition for Condonation
of ___________ days delay has been filed.

3. There is delay of ___________ days in re-filing the

petition and petition for Condonation of _________
days delay in re-filing has been filed.

BRANCH OFFICER

New Delhi
Dated :
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2014

(Arising out of the Impugned Judgement and final order
dated 18.10.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 662 of
1994).

(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

IN THE MATTER OF :

Paramjit Singh and Others …..Petitioners

Versus

Kuldeep Singh @ Kuldeep Dass, Chela S/o

Sher Singh Chela Kahan Singh and others

… Respondents

WITH

I.A. No of 2014 Application for Condonation of delay in

filing Special Leave Petition

(P A P E R - B O O K)

(FOR INDEX: KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER : AJAY KUMAR SINGH

 INDEX

Sl.No. Particulars. Pages.

1. Office Report on Limitation. 'A'

2 Listing Performa A1- A2

3. Synopsis/List of Dates & Events. B–

4. Copy of judgment/Order dated

19.9.2008 passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh in R.A. No. 296 of 2008
in CWP No. 14003 of 2007.

5. Special Leave Petition with Affidavit.

6. Annexure-P-1:
Copy of the Show Cause Notice
Passed by Haryana Financial Corporation
dated 31.1.2007

7. Annexure-P-2:
Copy of the Reply by the
Petitioner dated 19.2.2007

8. Annexure-P-3:
Copy of the Summons
Passed by Assistant Collector
dated 23.8.2007

9. Annexure-P-4:
Copy of the Order passed by the
High Court in CWP No. 14003 of 2007
dated 10.9.2007

10. Annexure-P-5:
Copy of the Order passed by the
High Court in CWP No. 14003 of 2007
dated 24.9.2007

11. I.A. No of 2014

Application for Condonation of delay in
filing Special Leave Petition
 SYNOPSIS/ LIST OF DATES

By the impugned judgment, the Hon’ble High

Court has erroneously allowed the RSA and set aside

the findings of fact of the 1st appellate court and the

impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law as :

(A) FINDINGS OF FACT OF APPELLATE COURT

REVERSED WITHOUT PRAMING SUBSTANTIAL

QUESTIONS OF LAW. It is respectfully submitted that

Hon’ble High Court by reappreciating the evidence and

has reversed the findings of fact recorded by the 1 st

appellate court and has entertained and allowed the

RSA of the respondent without framing any substantial

question of law in terms of Section 100CPC. It is

pertinent to stated that even no substantial question of

law was mentioned in the Grounds of Second Appeal

filed before the Hon’ble High Court in terms of Section

100 (3) CPC. The impugned judgment, therefore, is

against the mandatory provisions of Section 100 CPC

and the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in a series

of judgments wherein it has been held that

representation of evidence is not permissible (except

where a ground is raised in the RSA and a findings is

recorded by the High Court that the decision of the 1 st

appellate court is perverse) in Second Appeal and

jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is confined only to

appeals, which involve a substantial question of law. In

the instant matter, the Hon’ble High Court proceeded to

reappreciate the entire evidence without recording any

such findings. It is pertinent to stated that this Hon’ble

Court in the matter of Ishar Dass Jain Vs. Sohan Lal

reported as (2000) I SCC 434 has held as Under :-

“10. Now under Section 100 CPC, after the 1976

Amendment, it is essential for the High Court to

formulate a substantial question of law and it is

not permissible to reverse the judgment of the

first appellate court without doing so.”

(emphasis supplied)

Similarly, in the matter of manikkoth Narayani Amma &

Others Vs. PC Kalliani Amma & Others reported as

(2003) 9 SCC 245 it has been held :-

“2… There is also no jurisdiction for going into

questions of fact in a second appeal unless it is

pleaded that the order that is under appeal is

perverse and a substantial question of law to that

effect has been raised …”

That the Courts below exercised their judicial discretion

after taking into consideration the evidence on record

and the Hon’ble High Court in Second Appeal could not

reappreciate the evidence in view of the law laid down in

the matter of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai

Sapan Gujar & others reported as (1999) 3 SCC 722

wherein it was held :-

“6. The mere appreciation of the facts, the

documentary evidence or the meaning of entries

and the contents of the document cannot be held

to be raising a substantial question of law …”

It is also necessary to state that the questions of law

referred by the Hon’ble High Court were mere questions

of facts, and not substantial of law in terms of Section

100 CPC.

The petitioners in the present SLP are bona fide tenant

in disputed suit property. They are in the possession of

the property in question and have been paying the rent

for so long. Petitioners do not claim themselves to be the

owners.

Hon’ble High Court in RSA has directed the petitioners

to restrain them from interfering in the suit property

without giving any justified reasons.

Two civil suits were filed before ld. Trial Court.

Civil Suit No. 75/3.2.86 was filed by Uttam Dass

respondent in present SLP against Sher Singh Chela

Kahan Singh and against Kuldeep Singh. Civil Suit No.

151/7.3.86 was filed by Kuldeep Singh against Uttam

Dass, petitioners and Sher Singh Chela Kahan Singh.

The dispute is regarding the ownership and

management of Dera. Uttam Singh claimed that land

measuring 90 kanal 5 marla is owned by Dera Udaia

Rajgarh and managed by him and Kuldeep Singh is

nowhere concerned in the functioning of Dera, whereas

Kuleep Singh claimed that he is overall functionary of

the suit property. The petitioners were paying the rent

and were bona fide tenants. Both trial court and learned

Appellate Court has held that they are the tenants and

were paying the rent. Hon’ble High Court in RSA has

restrained the petitioner from interfering in the suit

property. It is humbly submitted that finding of facts

can’t be reversed without giving sufficient reasons. The

dispute is primarily between Uttam Dass and Kuldeep

Singh and petitioners are made to suffer for no fault of

theirs.

Hon’ble High Court’s observation in the impugned

judgment that “petitioners were strangers with an

intention to meddle in its affairs unauthorizedly” is

therefore unjustified and liable to be set aside.

03.02.1986 Civil Suit No. 75 of 3.2.86 was filed by Uttam

Dass respondent against Sher Singh Chela

Kahna and Kuldeep Singh for defendant that

land measuring 90 kanal 5 marla was owned

by Dera Udais Rajgarh and earlier decree

suffered by Sher Singh Chela Kahan Singh in

favour of Kuldeep Singh is null and void and

further restraining Kuldeep Singh in

interfering in suit property.

07.03.1986 Civil Suit No. 151 of 7.3.1986 was filed by

Kuldeep Singh against Uttam Das, Chela

Kahan Singh and petitioners praying that

these persons be restrained from interfering

in the suit property.

25.08.1989 learned Sub Judge First Class, Barnala

dubbed both the suits and partly decreed the

Civil Suit No. 75 of 3.2.1986 and held that

land is owned by Dera Udasia, Rajgarh and

dismissed in totality Civil Suit No. 151 of

7.3.1986 filed by Kuldeep Singh. It was

specifically held that petitioners were bona

fide tenants and paying the rent. Copy of

judgment dated 25.8.1989 in Civil Suit No.

75/3.2.1986 and Civil Suit No. 151/7.3.1986

 passed Ld. Sub Judge First Class, Barnala is

annexed herewith and marked as Annexure

P-1.

25.9.1989 & C.A. No. 159/25.9.1989 and C.A. No. 160/

27.9.1989 27.9.1989 were filed by Uttam Dass and

petitioners respectively before Ld. ADJ,

Barnala challenging judgment passed by Sub

Judge. Cross objection were also filed by Sher

Singh and Kuldeep Singh.

06.10.1993 Ld. ADJ rejected the finding of ld. Trial Court

not Kuldeep Singh was appointed as manager

of the Dera and accepted the appeal and

cross objections and dismissed both the

suits. Copy of judgment dated 06.10.1993

passed by Ld. ADJ, Barnala in C.A. No.

159/25.9.1989 and C.A. No. 160/27.9.1989

is annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure P-2.

1994 R.S.A. No. 662/1994 was filed by Kuldeep

Singh against Uttam Dass and petitioners

challenging judgment dated 06.10.1983

passed by Ld. ADJ. 2 more RSA No. 1184/

1994 and 1674/1994 were filed by Uttam

 Dass. RSA No. 1184/1994 were also against

the petitioners.

18.10.2006 Hon’ble High Court passed impugned

judgment allowing RSA No. 662/1994 and

restrained the petitioners from interfering in

the suit property when they were the tenants

and should not have been evicted without due

procedure of law.

.01.2014 Hence the present Special Leave Petition.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2014

(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

IN THE MATTER OF:-

BETWEEN : POSITION OF PARTIES

Before In the High In this
trial Court Court Hon'ble
Court
1. Paramjit Singh S/o Defendant Respondent Petitioner
Mohinder Singh No. 3 No. 3 No. 1

2. Harpal Singh @ Defendant Respondent Petitioner

Nirpal Singh S/o No. 4 No. 4 No. 2
Gurdial Singh

3. Puran Singh S/o Defendant Respondent Petitioner

Nidhan Singh No. 6 No. 6 No. 3

All are resident of In Civil Suit

Rajgarh, Tehsil No. 151of
Barnala 7.3.1986

Versus

1. Kuldeep Singh @ Plaintiff Appellant Contesting

Kuldeep Dass, (in Civil No. 1 Respondent
Chela of Shri Sher Suit No. No. 1
Singh Chela Kahan 151 of
Singh S/o Bhagwan 7.3.1986)
Dass, resident of and
Rajgarh, Tehsil defendant
Barnala, for himself no. 2 (in
and as legal Civil Suit
representative of No. 75 of
Sher Singh, 3.2.1986)
appellant No. 2,
vide order dated
12.3.1999 passed
in C.M. No. 1380-C
of 1999
2. Uttam Dass Chela Defendant Respondent Performa
Som Parkash, No. 1 (in No. 1 Respondent
resident of Raoke Civil Suit No. 2
Kalan, now residing No. 151 of
at Rajgarh 7.3.1986)

3. Sucha Singh son of Defendant Respondent Performa

Amar Singh. No. 2 (in No. 2 Respondent
Civil Suit No. 3
No. 151 of
7.3.1986)

4. Mehar Singh son of Defendant Respondent Performa

Lehna Singh. No. 5 (in No. 5 Respondent
Civil Suit (all in RSA No. 4
No. 151 of No. 662 of
7.3.1986) 1994)

To,

The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India,

And His Companion Justices of the

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

The humble Petition of the

Petitioners above-named;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The petitioner is filing the present petition seeking

Special Leave to Appeal against the Impugned and

final order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the Hon'ble

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in

R.S.A. No. 662 of 1994 whereby the Hon'ble High

Court was pleased to dismiss the same.

1(a) Sher Singh (deceased) Chela Kahan Singh son of

Bhagwan Dass, resident of Rajgarh, his name deleted from

the arrays of respondent vide order dated 18.8.1994 passed

in C.M. 3280-C of 1994 and he is represented by his legal

representative Kuldeep Singh @ Kuldeep Dass, already on

record as respondent No. 1 vide order dated 12.3.1999

passed in C.M. No. 1380-C of 1999.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:

The following questions of law arise for consideration

by this Hon'ble Court:

(a) Whether Hon’ble Court was justified in restraining

the petitioners from interfering in the suit property

with out framing any question of law under Section

100 of C.P.C?

(b) Whether merely because there was no representation

on behalf of Uttam Dass, can petitioners be debarred

from enjoying the suit property when admittedly they

were paying the rent?

(c) Whether Hon’ble Court was justified in allowing RSA

662/94 and restraining petitioners from interfering

in the suit property without assigning any sufficient

and justified reasons?

(d) Whether findings of fact recorded by the Courts

below that land in suit is in possession of tenants/

 petitioners should have been ignored by Hon’ble

High Court?

(e) Whether observation made by Hon’ble High Court

against tenant/petitioners were justified when the

witnesses have specifically deposed that land was in

possession in of the tenants/petitioners?

(f) Insipte of findings of fact being nor reversed by

Hon’ble High Court, can it be said that petitioners

were not bonefide tenants?

(g) Can the tenants be evicted without following due

procedure of law?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2):

The petitioner states that no other petition for

Special Leave to Appeal has been filed by him

against the impugned Judgment and final order

dated 18.10.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court

of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.

662 of 1994.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6:

The Annexures P-1 to P-2 produced alongwith the

SLP are true copies of the pleadings/documents,

which formed part of the records of the case in the

 Court/Tribunal below against whose order the Leave

to Appeal is sought for in this Petition.

5. GROUNDS:

Leave to Appeal is sought on the following grounds.

A) This Hon’ble Court would please appreciate that

impugned Judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court

is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

B) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that

Hon'ble High Court has failed to appreciate findings

of fact recorded by the Courts below that petitioner

were tenants and were paying the rent. Thus they

can’t be evicted without following due procedure of

law.

C) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that

observation passed by Hon'ble High Court that

petitioners were occupying the property

unathorisedly is erroneous and against the facts

duly proved by witnesses.

D) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that

petitioner don’t claim themselves to be owner of

property. The stand of the petitioners is that they

 can not be evicted in violation of due procedure of

law.

E) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that

Hon'ble High Court erred in not appreciating that

once it has come in the findings of the Court below

that petitioners were bona fide tenants and were

paying the rent, they can’t be restrained from

enjoying the property.

F) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that

Hon'ble High Court ought not to have interfered with

findings of fact and pass judgement against the

factual findings.

G) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that

no question of law has been framed by Hon'ble High

Court and R.S.A. was denied against petitioners

without there being adjudication that petitioner were

not tenants.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

(i) That the Petitioner has this day filed the

accompanying Special Leave Petition before this

Hon'ble Court Against the impugned judgment and

final order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the Hon'ble

 High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in

R.S.A. No. 662 of 1994.

(ii) That the facts and circumstances have been set out

in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition. The Petitioner

craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to refer to and rely

upon the contents of the same for the sake of

present grounds.

(iii) That the petitioner has a good prima facie case and

the balance of convenience is also in favour of the

petitioner.

(iv) No prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the

respondent(s) herein if the interim relief as prayed

for are granted and the petitioner (s) will suffer grave

harm and irreparable hardship if the interim relief

are not granted.

(v) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, it

would be just and proper that the order dated

18.10.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.

662 of 1994 may kindly be stayed.

7. MAIN PRAYER:

The Petitioner most respectfully prays that this

Hon'ble Court may pleased to:

(a) grant Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of

the Constitution of India, against the impugned

judgment and Final order dated 18.10.2006 passed

by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 662 of 1994;

(b) pass any other order and further order or orders as

this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court

may be pleased to:

(a) Grant ad-interim ex-parte stay of operation of the

judgment and order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the

Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 662 of 1994; and

(b) Pass any other order and further order or orders as

this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE

PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

DRAWN BY: FILED BY:

NISHTHA CHAWLA AJAY KUMAR SINGH
Advocate Advocate for the Petitioner
New Delhi.
Drawn on: .01.2014
Filed on : .01.2014
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ________OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF :

xx …Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others …Respondents

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to

the pleadings before the Court/Tribunal whose order is

challenged and the other documents relied upon in those

proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds have

been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition.

It is further certified that the copies of the documents/

annexures attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary

to answer the question of law raised in the petition or to make

out grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for

consideration of this Hon'ble Court. This certificate is given on

the basis of the instructions given by the petitioner/person

authorised by the petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of

the S.L.P.

NEW DELHI. FILED BY:

FILED ON: .01.2014

(AJAY KUMAR SINGH)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ________OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF :

Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Through its CEO Smt. Gurpreet Kaur …Petitioner

Versus
Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Employees
Association (Regd) and Others Respondents
AFFIDAVIT

I, Smt. Gurpreet Kaur Chief Executive Officer The Ambala

Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Ambala at present at New Delhi,
do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -

1. That I am the Petitioner of the above mentioned case and am

competent to swear to this affidavit.

2. That I have read the accompanying Special Leave Petition

containing pages to (paragraphs 1 to grounds A
to ), List of dates (Pages B to ), interlocutory
applications and understood the contents thereof. The facts
stated there in are true and correct from the record of the
case, which I believe to be true to the best of my knowledge
& belief.

3. That the Annexures are true copies of their respective

originals.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION: -
Verified at New Delhi on this day of January 2014, I
the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of
the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge & belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
I.A. No. of 2014
In
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF :
xx …Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others …Respondents

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER.

To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
And His Companion Justices of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
The humble petition of the
Petitioner above-named;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. That the petitioner has this day filed the

accompanying Special Leave Petition before this

Hon’ble Court against the impugned judgment and

final order dated 13.01.2009 passed by the Hon'ble

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in

Civil Revision No. 6674 of 2005 (O&M).

2. That the facts and circumstances have been set out

in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition. The petitioner

 craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to and rely

upon the contents of the same for the sake of present

application.

3. That the petitioner has not been able to file the

certified copy of the impugned order dated

13.01.2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision

No. 6674 of 2005 (O&M) due to paucity of time since

the same has not been received. However, the

petitioner has filed a typed copy of the impugned

order along with the present Special Leave Petition.

4. That the petitioner undertakes to file the certified

copy of the impugned order as and when the same is

received or when it is so directed by this Hon'ble

Court.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the

case and in the interest of justice, most respectfully prayed

that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

(i) exempt the petitioner from filing certified copy of the

impugned judgement and final order dated

13.01.2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of

 Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision

No. 6674 of 2005 (O&M).

(ii) Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR

PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

New Delhi. FILED BY:

Filed on: 01.2014

(AJAY KUMAR SINGH)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

I.A. No. of 2014

In

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ________OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF :

Bachan Singh & Others …Petitioners

Versus
Harbans and others …Respondents

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN

RE-FILING THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and

His Companion Justices of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India
The Humble petition of the
Petitioners above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS UNDER :

1. That the petitioner herein has this day filed the Special

Leave Petition in this Hon’ble Court against the order

dated 02.08.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 2610

of 2012 and the contents there of may kindly be read

and treated as part of this application also.

2. That delay in filling the present petition is not

deliberate. The delay occurred due to the procurement

of the document.

3. That the delay in re-filing the accompanying special

leave petition is neither willful nor intentional but was

due to the circumstances beyond the control of the

petitioner as indicated herein above.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-

(a) Condone the delay of days in re-filing the

Special Leave Petition against the order dated

02.08.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.

2610 of 2012.

(b) And /or pass such other and further orders which

this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

interest of justice.

FILED BY:

(AJAY KUMAR SINGH)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.

FILED ON: .01.2014

NEW DELHI
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

I.A. No. of 2014

In

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ________OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF :

xx …Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others …Respondents

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN

FILING THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

And His Companion Justices of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

The humble petition of the

Petitioner above-named;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. That the petitioner has this day filed the

accompanying Special Leave Petition before this

Hon’ble Court against the impugned judgment and

final order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the Hon'ble

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in

R.S.A. No. 662 of 1994.

2. That the facts and circumstances have been set out

in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition. The petitioner

craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to and rely

upon the contents of the same for the sake of present

application.

3. That the delay has occurred in filing Special Leave

Petition because of the reason that after the

pronouncement of the impugned Judgment, the

certified copy of the impugned order was applied for

on 12.5.2006.

4. That the certified copy of the same has been received

on 30.5.2006. After receiving the certified copy it was

sent to the Petitioner’s Advocate at Chandigarh for

getting his opinion whether to file Special Leave

Petition. Then the Advocate took sometime for filing

the Special Leave Petition.

5. That therefore, the delay of days in filing the

instant Special Leave Petition is neither intentional

nor deliberate and was due to the reasons beyond the

control of the petitioner.

6. That the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss

and injury and can not be compensated if the delay in

filing the Special Leave Petition is not condoned.

 PRAYER

It is, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the

case and in the interest of justice, most respectfully prayed

that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

(a) Condone the delay of days in filing the

accompanying Special Leave Petition against the

impugned judgement and final order dated

18.10.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 662

of 1994;

(b) Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR

PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

New Delhi. FILED BY:

Filed on: -

(AJAY KUMAR SINGH)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.