Himachal Pradesh High Court
CMPMO/251/2012 on 28 December 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 251 of 2012.
Date of decision: 28.12.2012.
Santosh Kumar s/o Sh. Hari Chand r/o village Bhater Kallan, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil & Distt. Hamirpur, H.P.
…..Petitioner- plaintiff.
Vs.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Sukh Dev s/o Sh. Beli Ram
2. Rup Lal s/o Sh. Beli Ram
3. Chhotu Ram s/o Sh. Beli Ram
All r/o village Bhater Kallan, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil & Distt. Hamirpur, H.P.
4. Kunta Devi d/o Beli Ram w/o Sh. Sukh Dev r/o village Didwin, Tehsil & Distt. Hamirpur, H.P.
…… Respondents- defendants.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Pritam Singh Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) :
Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral).
This petition under article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed for setting-aside order dated 21.1.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.3, Hamirpur rejecting the application of the petitioner for a direction that Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the defendants may be directed to withdraw from the suit and only act as witness of the petitioner.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocte, counsel for the defendants Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes High Court of H.P. 2012:HHC:12310 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 23:16:42 :::CIS
…2… is a witness in the adoption-deed dated 21.2.1989 by Hari Chand in favour of the petitioner. The submission has been made that petitioner has cited Mr. R. K. Sharma, Advocate as a witness to prove the adoption-deed dated 21.2.1989, therefore, Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate may be directed not to appear on behalf of the defendants as their counsel.
3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the written statement filed by the defendants, they have admitted the execution of adoption-deed dated 21.2.1989 in favour of the petitioner. In case the defendants have admitted the execution of adoption-deed dated 21.2.1989 in favour of the petitioner, then it is not understandable for what purpose the petitioner wants to prove the execution of the adoption deed dated 21.2.1989 by examining Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate as her witness. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order when it is the case of the defendants themselves whom Mr. R.K. Sharma is representing in the court below that Hari Chand had executed the adoption deed dated 21.2.1989 registered on 22.2.1989 in favour of the petitioner.
4. There is no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. In case still the petitioner has some grievance against the professional conduct of Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate, then it is open to her to approach the Bar Council against the conduct of Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate. No case is made out for interference. Resultantly, the petition fails and is dismissed, so also the pending application (s), if any. December 28, 2012.
( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem)
Judge. High Court of H.P. 2012:HHC:12310 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2026 23:16:42 :::CIS