SLP (C)No. 17325/2015 1 ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.13 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 17325/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05/02/2015 in CR No. 4106/2012 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) GURSHARAN SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUS MANMOHAN SINGH Respondent(s) (With interim relief and office report) Date : 10/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, Adv. Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Adv. Ms. Arpita Rai, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R It is argued by the learned counsel that in the written submission filed by the petitioner herein, the petitioner had referred to the family settlement and, inter alia , had stated that as per the settlement, the sum of Rs.13 lakhs was to be paid by his party to party No. 3, i.e., Manmohan Singh, at the time of purchasing the stamp papers. She points out that the only amendment which was sought was to correct the typographical errors which occurred in the aforesaid assertion inasmuch as, as per the family settlement which is already a part of record, payment made was Rs.10 lakhs and not Rs. 13 lakhs and party No. 3 is
SLP (C)No. 17325/2015 2 Raminder Kaur and not Manmohan Singh. Further, the address mentioned was H.No. 305-L Model Town, Karnal, however, it is H.No.305-R, Model Town, Karnal. We are of the opinion that since family settlement is already on record which is an admitted document, it is still permissible for the petitioner to point out the correctness of the particulars from the said document. With these observations the special leave petition is dismissed. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Suman Jain) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
SECTION IVB Listed on.10.07.2015 Court No.13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Item No.35 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL(CIVIL)NO. 17325 OF 2015 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF Gursharan Singh ...Petitioner(s) Versus Manmohan Singh ...Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT It is submitted that the above mentioned Special Leave Petition is filed by Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, Advocate on 30.03.2015 against the Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2015 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRP No. 4106 of 2012. It is further submitted that initially SLP filed against the Order dated 05.02.2015 was within time but there was a delay of 60 days in refiling the SLP. Counsel had filed an application for condonation of delay in refiling the SLP and the same has been condoned by Additional Registrar IB on 01.07.2015. The matter is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 07th day of July, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to : Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh , Adv. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR YKS/Mty
þ SLP (C)No. 17325/2015 1 ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.13 SECTION IVB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 17325/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05/02/2015 in CR No. 4106/2012 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) GURSHARAN SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUS MANMOHAN SINGH Respondent(s) (With interim relief and office report) Date : 10/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, Adv. Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Adv. Ms. Arpita Rai, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R It is argued by the learned counsel that in the written submission filed by the petitioner herein, the petitioner had referred to the family settlement and, inter alia, had stated that as per the settlement, the sum of Rs.13 lakhs was to be paid by his party to party No. 3, i.e., Manmohan Singh, at the time of purchasing the stamp papers. She points out that the only amendment which wasSignature Not Verified soughtDigitally signed byMeenakshi Kohli was to correct the typographical errors whichDate: 2015.07.1517:39:26 ISTReason: occurred in the aforesaid assertion inasmuch as, as per the family settlement which is already a part of record, payment made was Rs.10 lakhs and not Rs. 13 lakhs and party No. 3 isSLP (C)No. 17325/2015 2 Raminder Kaur and not Manmohan Singh. Further, the address mentioned was H.No. 305-L Model Town, Karnal, however, it is H.No.305-R, Model Town, Karnal.
We are of the opinion that since family settlement is already on record which is an admitted document, it is still permissible for the petitioner to point out the correctness of the particulars from the said document. With these observations the special leave petition is dismissed. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Suman Jain) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER