k(doU: 2 ^ 2^ ^3

. r. o^fi^fUT\JM ty f^/i.
~T^ //j c:/y 3 i>Jf 2^1.2:^ ^
I^kXL,'
■f--Tiyr I i/lm Sk ' Ha^oT (t/iiJA
IN TH
THE COURT CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), GURUGRAM
CMNO/^r OF 2023
IN
CM NO. 682 OF 2022

NDOH: 22.05.2023 (An Unanticipated Holiday)

IN THE MATTER OF:
NEMO (all affected minors) tlrrough next friend, Lt Col (Veteran) Sai-vadaman Singh
Oberoi ...Applicant/Next Friend
Versus
Union of India tlu^ough The Secretaiy, Ministiy of Ajmsh, Government of India & others
... Defendants
INDEX
SR
PARTICULARS DATE PAGE
NO
Application u/s 151 CPC r/w S. 4 (1) CPC & S.129 CPC r/w
LETTERS PATENT CONSTITUTING THE HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATURE AT LAHORE, DATED THE 21ST
1. 22.05.23 2-8
MARCH, 1919 for clarification of a puiported Order dated
20.05.2023 (not uploaded till 9 AM on 22.05.2023) with
affidavit
JUDGEMENT RELIED UPON: 1956.12.14 Mst Dhapan v.
2. 14.12.56 9-12
Ram Saran, ILR 1957 (1) PH 746
JUDGEMENT RELIED UPON: Surinder Kumar v. Smt.
3. 25.05.11 13-16
Leela Devi, 2011 SCO OnLine PH 3669
ANNEXURE P-335: Copy of CRM 528 of 2022 titled
4. 16.08.22 17-21
Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi v. State of Haryana
ANNEXURE P-336: Copy of CM 682 of 2022 titled NEMO
5. through Next Friend Lt Col (Veteran) Saiwadaman Singh 17.12.22 22-29
Oberoi v. Union of India and others
ANNEXURE P-337: CASE STATUS CM 682 OF 2022 AT 9
6. 22.05.23 30
AM ON 22.05.2023

Place: Gurugram
Date: 22.05.2023
Applicant/ Next Friend
Sai-vadaman Singh Oberoi
1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden, Sector 47, Gurugram 122018
Mob: 9818768349, Email: [email protected]
 2
IN THE COURT CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION), GURUGRAM
CM NO. OF 2023
IN
CM NO.682 OF 2022

NDOH:22.02.2023(An Unanticipated Holiday)

IN THE MATTER OF:
NEMO (all affected minors) thi'ough next friend, Lt Col (Veteran) Sai-vadaman Singh
Oberoi ...Applicant/Next Friend
Versus
Union ofIndia thi-ough The Secretary, Ministiy of Ayush, Government of India & others
... Defendants

APPLICATION U/S 151 CPC r/w S.4(1)CPC & S.129 CPC r/w LETTERS PATENT
CONSTITUTING THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT LAHORE,DATED
THE 21ST MARCH, 1919 for clarification of a purported Order dated 20.05.2023
(not uploaded till 9 AM on 22.05.2023)

Most respectfully submitted:

1. That this is an Application u/s 151 CPC r/w S. 4(1)CPC & S.129 CPC r/w LETTERS
PATENT CONSTITUTING THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT LAHORE,
DATED THE 21ST MARCH, 1919 for clarification of a purported Order dated 20.05.2023
(not uploaded till 9 AM on 22.05.2023).._
2. That the applicable law / High Court Precept, on and after 07.05.1998 being "part of
the Rule 4 has been deleted vide correction slip No. 32 dated 07.05.1988 and is no more
available as a part ofRule 4. Meaning thereby, in case ofan unanticipated holiday or in the
event of the Presiding Officer of a Court being absent owing to sudden illness or other
unexpected cause, all casesfixedfor the day in question shall be deemed to be automatically
adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding Officer is present and it shall be the
duty ofthe parties or their counsel(but not ofwitnesses) to attend the Court on that day. The
question ofissuance of notice to the parties, which was provided by the latter part of this
Rule and has been interpreted in the case ofJoint Hindu Family Trading Firm (Registered
Firm) Matu Ram Puran Chand (supra), has already been deleted in the year 1988."
.(Surinder Kumar v. Smt. Leela Devi, 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 393, 2011 SCC OnLine PH
3669

3. That today, 22.05.2023 being an unanticipated holiday in the matter CM No. 682 of
2022 titled NEMO v. Union ofIndia and others,law does not permit any such purported order
dated 20.05.2023 to fix any date, whatsoever; 23.05.2023 being an anticipated holiday the
cases for 22.05.2023 as per mandate of S.129 CPC law shall necessarily have to be all listed
 3
automatically on 24.05.2023 WITHOUT FAIL.rSurinder Kumar v. Smt. Leela Devi,
2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 393, 2011 SCC OnLine PH 3669 & Mst Dhapan v. Ram Saran,
ILR 1957(1)PH 746 relied upon)
4. That on 31.10.2022 the learned court ordered that "Today the case wasfixedforfurther
arguments on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However, at this stage, Lt. Col.
(Veteran) San'adaman Singh Oberoi appearing on behalf ofplaintiff moved an application
under Section 151 CPC (Article 375 parens partriae Jurisidiction ofthis Court) andfurther
submitted that he willfurther argue on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only after
decision of the instant application under Section 151 CPC (Article 375 parens partriae
Jurisidiction of this Court) moved by him today. Copy of aforesaid application supplied to
the opposite parties. Adjournment soughtjointly by learned counsels for both the parties.
Now to come up on 12.12.2022forfiling reply and consideration on the aforesaid application
as well asforfurther arguments on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC."
5. That on 12.12.2022 the reply was not filed to application under Article 375 parens
partriae Jurisidiction ofthis Court, and learned court was pleased to extend the date for filing
reply to application under Article 375 parens partriae Jurisidiction of this Court to
17.12.2022.

6. That on 17.12.2022 and on all subsequent dates till 04.05.2023 also no reply had been
filed by defendants to application under Article 375'parens partriae Jurisidiction of this
Court.

7. That in tliis background there is now a need to recapitulate the manner in which the
State organs are obstmcting justice, are clearly in legal malice and under looming thi-eat of
being reported to Hon'ble High Court for launching of proceedings of contempt of the
repeated violaions of the orders of this learned court since February 2022.
8. That on 15.02.2022 this learned court passed order recording "Adjournment requested
on behalfofappearing defendantsforfiling written statement and reply to stay application."
fixing next date of hearing 22.02.2022. That on 22.02.2022andtill 17.12.2022 the defendants
have not sought any permission for extending the date of filing the WS and have also not
filed any WS till 17.12.2022, today. This amounts to contumacious conduct for an ordinary
litigant the organs of State are seen to be immune to the ordinary law of this land.
9. That on 11.03.2022 this learned court passed order recording "Hefurther emphasized
that before deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, his injunction application
be decidedfirst. At this stage, learned counselfor the defendants sought adjournmentfor
fding reply to the stay application. Heard. Considering the submissions raised by learned
 4
counselsfor both the parties, now to come up on 15.03.2022forfiling reply and consideration
on the injunction application."
10. That on the next date of hearing 15.03.2022 and till 17.12.2022 the defendants have not
sought any pennission for extending the date of filing the WS and have also not filed any
reply to injunction application till 17.12.2022, today. This amounts to contumacious conduct
for an ordinaiy litigant the organs of State are seen to be immune to the ordinaiy law of this
land. That this delay has also led to estopping this learned court fi-om passing the injunction
order from 15.03.2022 to 02.05.2022 [SC judgement declaring it illegal to use coercive
measures, enforce travel restrictions, enforce masking, enforce intmsive testing, giving sops
and enticements so as inject vaccination sans infonned voluntaiy consent upon persons] and
resulting in millions of people in India were denied the benefit such injunction would have
given to unwilling persons from 15.03.2022 to 02.05.2022 who got vaccinated only because
of coercive (now declared illegal under 9 judges bench 2017 judgement in re Justice
Puttaswamy) measures ofthe Disaster Management Act, 2005 Section 25.
11. That on 04.04.2022, in haiinony with law laid down in Kanwar Singh Saini v. High
Court ofDelhi,(2012)4 SCC 307 basis Order 3 Rule 1, CPC this learned court passed order
recording "5. Arguments on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC not advanced. Reply to
the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC notfiled. Reply to the application Under
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC notfiled. It is submitted by Lt. Col.
(Veteran)Savardaman Singh Oberoi appearing on behalfofplaintiffthat the defendants are
intentionally lingering on the matter and some official representative on behalfofdefendants
department be present to clarify certain facts in the present case. Adjournment sought by
learned counsels appearing on behalfofdefendants. Heard. Now, on the request oflearned
Counselsfor defendants, the case is adjourned to 16.04.2022forfiling reply and arguments
on aforesaid application under Order 6Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Reply
to the the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC shall also befiled on the next date of
hearing. Arguments on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC shall also be heard on the
date fixed. In the interest of justice, some official representative from the defendants
department be also present on the datefixed."
12. That on the next date ofhearing 16.04.2022 and till 04.05.2023 the defendants have not
sought any permission for not attending in person to clarify their stand on injunction and are
also not attending in person to clarify their stand on injunction till 22.05.2023, today. This
amounts to contumacious conduct and ordinarily this learned court is bound to report this to
Hon'ble High Court as a contempt of court proceedings before Hon'ble High Court under
 5
Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi,(2012)4 SCC 307 basis Order 3 Rule 1, CPC.
As compared to an ordinary litigant the organs of State are now seen to be immune to the

ordinai'v law of this land. This is constitutionally impennissible. That this delay has also led
to estopping this learned court from passing the injunction order from 15.03.2022 to
02.05.2022 [SC judgement declaring it illegal to use coercive measures, enforce ttavel
restrictions, enforce masldng, enforce intmsive testing, giving sops and enticements so as
inject vaccination sans infomied voluntaiy consent upon persons] and resulting in millions
of people in India were denied the benefit such injunction would have given to unwilling
persons from 15.03.2022 to 02.05.2022 who got vaccinated only because of coercive (now
declared illegal under 9judges bench 2017judgement in re Justice Puttaswamy) measures of
the Disaster Management Act, 2005 Section 25.
13. That latest media reports on 17.12.2022 suggest "Two days after Union Law Minister
Kiren Rijiju, pointing to the high pendency of cases, said ifthe Supreme Court "starts hearing
bail applications... all frivolous PILs" it will add "a lot of extra burden on the Court", a bench
led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud remarked Friday "it is in the seemingly small
and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of the moment, both in
jurispmdential and constitutional terms, emerge".The bench, also comprising Justice P S
Narasimha, said that "right to personal libeity is a precious and inalienable right recognised
by the Constitution" and lack of intervention by the Court can even lead to "serious
miscarriage ofjustice"."
httDs://www.iDsn.coin/en-in/news/other/dutv-to-stei)-in-even-in-sma]]-matters-guard-libertv-cii-after-riiii'u-s-remark/ar-

AAl 5nkGJ?ocid=msedgdhD&DC=U531 &cvid=bb64cef8bd454b43b9cf9afn d3778d8

14. That in Mst Dhapan v. Ram Saran, ILR 1957(1)PH 746, it was held (in a case of
unanticipated holiday as in this case) by Bhandari C.J., that "The petitioner who had
preferred an appeal to the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge at Gurgaon,failed to appear in
Court on the 28th August, 1954, when it was to come upfor hearing. Fortunately,for her
28th August, was declared a holiday and alt cases which were fixed for that date were
automatically adjourned to the 30th August, 1954, which was the next working day. The
petitioner M'as not present in Court on that day either The rule does not require that all
cases which are adjourned shall be heard on the next working day. All that it requires is that
the parties or their counsel shall attend Court on the next day, ifpossible, so that the next
date ofthe hearing should befixed in their presence It may be that the petitioner in the
present case did not appear in Court on the 30"' August, 1954, but it must be remembered
that nothing was to be done that day. The parties were to be called and the ease was to be set
 6
down for hearing on another date It has been held repeatedly that where the date fixed
for hearins a case hapvens to be a holiday, the Court is in no way justified in takins uv the

case on the followins day and in passins any order to the prejudice of any of the absent

parties without duly sennng: upon him a fresh notice ofthe hearins."

15. However with the change in law, it was held in Surinder Kumar v. Smt. Leela Devi,
2011 see OnLine PH 3669 it was held "The questions of laM> involved in this revision
petition are as under:-
a) whether in a case ofan unanticipated holiday, the Presiding Officer ofa Court is obliged
tofix afresh datefor proper orders on the next working day in terms ofRule 4 ofChapter 1,
Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders ofPunjab & Haryana High Court or can pass an
effective order on the next working day?
b) whether ifthe holiday is not unanticipated, but the case is adjourned by the Presiding
Officer to a Sunday or a declared holiday, is he required tofix a datefor proper orders by
taking up the case on the next working day?
"4. Adjournment caused by absence ofthe Judge of unexpected holiday. On the occurrence
ofan unanticipated holiday or in the event ofthe Presiding Officer ofa Court being absent
owing to sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all cases fixed for the day in question
deemed to have been automatically adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding
Officer is present and it shall be the duty ofthe parties or their counsel(but not ofwitnesses)
to attend Court on that day. Whenever possible the Presiding Officer should, as soon as may
be,fixfresh dates in casesfixedfor the date which is declared a holiday orfor which he has
obtained leave, and issue notices to the parties, their counsel and witnesses, ofthefresh dates
fixed the latter part of the Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume I ofthe Rules &
Orders which provides that "whenever possible the Presiding Officer should, as soon as may
be,fixfresh dates in casesfixedfor the date which is declared a holiday orfor which he has
obtained leave, and issue notices to the parties, their counsel and witnesses, ofthefresh dates
fixed" and this part of the Rule 4 has been deleted vide correction slip No. 32 dated
07.05.1988 and is no more available as a part ofRule 4. Meaning thereby, in case of an
unanticiyated holidav or in the event ofthe Presidins Officer ofa Court beins absent owin^
to sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all cases fixed for the day in question shall be
deemed to be automatically adjourned to the next workins day when the Presidins Officer is
present and it shall be the duty ofthe parties or their counsel(but not ofwitnesses) to attend
the Court on that day. Thus, thefirst question, which has been framed in the beginning of
thejudgment, is deeided accordingly.
 7
Nom> the second question involved in this revision petition is that ifthe adjourned date is not
an unanticipated holiday but a holiday already declared in the calendar for the judicial
Courtsfor the States ofPunjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh or is a Sunday, then in that
circumstance, Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders would not be
applicable because it deals with only an unanticipated holiday and not a holiday which is
already hiown. In this regard, no rule is brought to the notice ofthe Court by the counselfor
the parties and in these circumstances, the parties avoearins before the Court in such type
ofcases, can always pray for a date for proper orders...."

16. Hence this application may be heard today 22.05.2023 by the link court, so as to grant
last opportunity to defendants fixing 24.05.2023 for filing reply to Application dated
31.10.2022, aforesaid, the copies having been supplied to the counsels in the court on
31.10.2022 itself.

17. That even on 16.08.2022 and again on 17.12.2022 the law point involved in listing of
matters in unanticipated / anticipated holiday was brought to attention of the court as per the
two applications annexed. FANNEXURES P-335 & 3361
18. That the website screenshot at 09.09 AM on 22.05.2023 is self-explanatoiy of the
settled legal position, beyond any manner of doubt, whatsoever.[ANNEXURES P-3381
19. That the matter be listed on 24.05.2023 for last opportunity hearing considering that
even on website no actual order uploaded as at 9AM on 22.05.2023 in cases listed for
22.05.2023.

PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that hearing of this application for availing last and
final opportunity to defendants be taken up by the link court in the interests ofjustice today
itself, so as to implement the High Court Mandate that matter needs must be taken up on the
next available date, 24.05.2023, or as the case may be.
Place: Gurugram
Date: 22.05.2023

> Applicant/Next Friend

Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden, Sector 47, Gurugram 122018
Mob: 9818768349, Email: [email protected]
 IN THE COURT CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION), GURUGRAM
CM NO. 16s OF 2023
IN
CM NO.682 OF 2022

NDOH:22.02.2023(An Unanticipated Holiday)

IN THE MATTER OF:
NEMO (all affected minors) through next friend, Lt Col(Veteran) Sarvadaman Singh
Oberoi ...Applicant/Next Friend
Versus
Union of India thi'ough The Secretaiy, Ministiy of Ayush, GoveiTunent of India & others
... Defendants
AFFIDA^HT

I, Sai-vadaman Singh Oberoi, S/o Late Capt. H.S Oberoi, aged about 74 years, R/o 1102/Tower
1 Uniworld Garden I, Sector 47 Gumgram, Haiyana, Mob: 9818768349 Email
[email protected] do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That applicant is applicant/for petitioner NEMO through Next Friend in the instant
Civil Miscellaneous Application under Section 151 CPC, and is competent to swear this
affidavit on his own behalf.

2. That the accompanying application and its enclosures has been drafted by me and the
contents ofthe same are tine and coiTect to my knowledge and beliefand submissions are based
upon infonnation believed to be true.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified, on this twenty second day of May 2023 that, to the best of my knowledge,the contents
of the aforesaid affidavit are true and correct and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.

DEPONENT
 see Online Web Edition, © 2022 BBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Monday, August 15, 2022
Printed For: Mr. Sarvadaman Oberoi
1O N L WEf sec Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
TruePrint™ source: ILR (Punjab & Haryana), © 2022 Punjab & Haryana High Oourt.
True Print"

746 PUNJAB SERIES [VOL. X

Prithvi Raj he was guilty of these charges. When he appeal

Bali
ed to the Inspector-General of Police, his appeal
V.
was carefully considered and the Inspector-
The State of.
General wrote a lengthy order in which he discus
Delhi
and others
sed the petitioner's case from all aspects. In a
case of this type I would not be prepared to exer
Khosla, J. cise the extraordinary powers by Article 226 of
the Constitution.

I would, therefore, dismiss this petition with

costs.

Falshaw. J. Falshaw, J.—I agree.

REVISIONAL CIVIL

' Before Bhandari, C. J. 1 ^ •

Mst. DHAPAN,—Petitioner '

V.

RAM SARAN and others,—Respondents

Civil Revision No. 180 of 1955.

High Court Rules and Orders, Volume J, Chapter 1-K,

1956 parn 4—Object and Scope of—Date of hearing declared a
holiday—Appeal taken up next day and dismissed in de
Dec. 14th
fault—Order of dismissal for default, whether justified—
Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), Order 41, rules 17
and 19.

Held, that rul^ 4 appears to provide that if the pre

siding officer of the Court is unable to attend Court on a
particular day all cases fixed for that day shall be deemed
to have been automatically adjourned to the next working
day and that the parties or their counsel shall attend Court
on the next day, so that the next date of the hearing should
be fixed in their presence.

Held further, that where the date fixed for hearing of

a case happens to be a holiday, the Court is in no way
justified in taking up the case on the following day and in
 see Online Web Edition, © 2022 ESe Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, August 15, 2022
Printed For: Mr. Sarvadaman Oberoi ,
jO N L I N E see Online Web Edition: tittp://www.scconline.com
TrU6 Print" TruePrim™ source: ILR (Punjab & Haryana), © 2022 Punjab & Haryana High Court. JQ

VOL. X] INDIAN LA-W REPORTS "747

passing any order to the prejudice of any of the absent

parties without duly serving upon him a fresh notice of
the hearing.

Mst. Umai-ul-Mughni Begum v. Salig Ram and others

(1), and Raghunandan Lohar v. Bachan Singh and others
(2), relied upon.

Petition under section 115, Civil Procedur'e Code, for

revision of the order of Shri A. S. Gilani, Senior Sub-Judge,
invested with enhanced appellate powers, Gurgaon, dated
the 11th March, 1955, dismissing the petitioner's applica
tion for restoration of appeal.

H. R. SoDHi and Daljit Singh, for Petitioner.

H. L. Sarin, for Respondent.

Judgment.

Bhandari, C. J. This petition raises the ques- Bhandari, C.J'.

tion whether the petitioner is entitled to the res
toration of her appeal which was dismissed in
default.

The petitioner who had preferred an appeal

to the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge at Gurgaon,
failed to appear in Court on the 28th August, 1954,
When it was to come up for hearing. Fortunately,
for her 28th August, was declared a holiday and all
cases which were fixed for that date were automati
cally adjourned to the 30th August, 1954, which was
"the next working day. The petitioner was not pre
sent in Court on that day either in person or
through counsel and the learned . Senior Sub-
Judge accordingly dismissed the appeal in default.
The petitioner is dissatisfied with the order of dis
missal and has come to this Court in revision under
section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(1) A.I.R. 1915 Lah. 476

(2) A.I.R. 1940 Pat. 475
 see Online Web Edition, © 2022 BBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Pages Monday, August 15, 2022
^ Printed For: Mr. Sarvadaman Oberoi
O N L I N' E^ see Online Web Edition: http://www.scconllne.com
"TrUG Print" TruePrlnt™ source: ILR (Punjab & Haryana), © 2022 Punjab & Haryana High Court.

748 PUNJAB SERIES [VOL. X

Mst. Dhapan The rule on which the learned Senior Sub-

Judge appears to have acted is in the following
RamSaran —
and others

Bhandari, C. J. "On the occurrence of an unanticipated

holiday or in the event of the presiding
officer of a court being absent owing to
sudden illness or other unexpected
cause, all cases fixed for the day in ques
tion shall be deemed to have been
automatically adjourned to the next
working day when the presiding
is present and it shall be the duty of the
parties or their counsel (but not of wit
nesses) to attend court on that day.
Whenever possible the presiding officer
should, as soon as may be, fix fresh
dates in cases fixed for the date which
is declared a holiday or for which he has
obtained leave, and issue notices to the
parties, their counsel and witnesses, of
the fresh dates fixed."

The language of this rule is by no means clear, for

it provides only that if the presiding officer of the
Court is unable to attend Court on a particular
date all cases fixed for that day shall be deemed to
have been automatically adjourned to the next
working day. The rule does not require that all
cases which are adjourned shall be heard on the
next working day. All that it requires is that the
parties or their counsel shall attend Court on the
next day, if possible, so that the next date of the
hearing should be fixed in their presence. This
conclusion appears to be supported by the second
paragraph of the rule which provides that the pre
siding officer shall fix fresh dates in cases fixed
for the day which declared a holiday or for which
he has obtained leave and to issue notices to the
 see Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBe Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Monday, August 15, 2022
Printed For: Mr. Sarvadaman Oberoi
^ONLINE-f see Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
TrU© Print™ IruePrint™ source: ILR (Punjab & Haryana), © 2022 Punjab & Haryana High Court.

VOL. x3 INDIAN LAW REPORlj'S 74&

parties, their counsel and the witnesses of the Mst. Dhapan

fresh dates fixed.
Ram Saran
It may be that the petitioner in the present ^nd others
case did not appear in Court on the 30th August,
1954, but it must be remembered that nothing was Bhandari, C. J.
to be done that day. The parties were to be called
and the case was to be set down for hearing on
another date. The Senior Sub-Judge, however,
decided to take up the appeal and to dismiss it in
default. It seems to me, therefore, that the
learned Senior Sub-Judge did not comply with the
provisions of the rule which required him to ad
journ the hearing of the appeal to another date. It
has been held repeatedly that where the date fixed
for hearing a case happens to be a holiday, the
Court is in no way justified in taking up the case
on the following day and in passing any order to
the prejudice of any of the absent parties without
duly serving upon him a fresh notice of the hear
ing. Mst. Umai-ul-Mughni Begum v. Salig Ram
and others (1), and Raghunandan Lohar v. Bachan
Singh and others (2).
For these reasons, I would accept the petition,
set aside the order of the lower appellate Court
and direct that the appeal be restored and heard
On merits. There will be no order as to costs.
The parties will appear before the Senior Sub-
Judge on the 15th January, 1957.
APPELLATE CIVIL

Be/ore Kapur and Passey, JJ.

UNION OF INDIA,—Defendant-Appellant
V.

Sardarni HARBANS KAUR and others,—Respondents

Regrular First Appeal No. 135 of 1950.
Public carrier—Railway—^Persons travelling contrary to
1956
bye-law or a contract express or implied, whether a
fl) A.I.R. 1915 Lah. 476 ~ ^ 17th Dec.
(2) A.I.R. 1940 Pat. 475
 i) see Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBe Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
f Page 1 Monday, August 15,2022
• Printed For: Mr. Sarvadaman Oberol
1 Online Web Edition: http://wvvw.scconline.com
7y.ns,.ar. ® 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow. 13

2011 see OnLine P&H 3669 :(2011) 3 ReR (eivil) 393 :(2011) 1 ReR (Rent)
498 : PLR (2011) 163 P&H 108

(Before Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.)

Surinder Kumar and another Petitioners

V.

Smt. Leela Devi Respondent

Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the respondent.
CR No. 5318 of 2010 (O&M)
Decided on March 25, 2011

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, 3.

The questions of law involved in this revision petition are as under:-

a) whether in a case of an unanticipated holiday, the Presiding Officer of a
Court is obliged to fix a fresh date for proper orders on the next working day
in terms of Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders of
Punjab & Haryana High Court or can pass an effective order orr the next
working day?

b) whether if the holiday is not unanticipated, but the case is adjourned by the
Presiding Officer to a Sunday or a declared holiday, is he required to fix a date
for proper orders by taking up the case on the next working day?
The brief facts of the case are that the landlady filed a petition seeking eviction of her
tenants from the demised premises bearing Shop No. 1094, Morigate, Manimajra, U.T.
Chandigarh, which was allegedly rented out to them by way of a lease deed dated
03.12.2004 @ Rs. 4,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2004 to 30.11.2005, @ Rs. 4,200/-
per month w.e.f. 01.12.2005 to 30.11.2006, @ Rs. 4,410/- per month w.e.f.
01.12.2006 to 30.11.2007 and @ Rs. 4,630/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2007 to
30.11.2008. The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent
amounting to Rs. 47,320/- up to 30.11.2007, w.e.f. 01.12.2007 to February, 2008 and
also w.e.f. 01.12.2008 onwards. The tenants admitted that the lease deed was
executed for a period of 3 years, but they denied the allegation of non-payment of rent
and had rather submitted that the rent amounting to Rs. 52,000/- was tendered in an
earlier rent petition and as such, there was no arrears of rent which could be claimed
by the landlady.

The learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 17.12.2010, assessed the provisional
rent @ Rs. 4,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2008 till February, 2010 alongwith interest
@ 6% per annum and. costs of Rs. 1,000/- which was ordered to be tendered by the
tenants on 28.03.2010, which fell on a Sunday, therefore, the learned Rent Controller
took up the case on 29.03.2010 as it was automatically adjourned for the next working
day in terms of Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules &. Orders of Punjab
& Haryana High Court [for short "Rules & Orders"]. The counsel for the-tenants
appeared on 29.03.2010, but the rent was not tendered, rather the extension of time
was prayed on the pretext that a close relative of the tenants has expired. The
landlady opposed the prayer of the tenants and alleged that the case is not required to
be adjourned because the effective date of hearing, which falls on a holiday, is the
 see Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBO Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, August 15, 2022
Printed For: Mr. Sarvadaman Oberoi
yi)j! sec Online Web Edition: http://wvw.scconiine.com |
The surest waijto Uga!research
!
© 2022 EBO Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow. 14

next working day and since the tenants are not prepared with the amount of rent
assessed by the learned Rent Controller, therefore, they are indulging into dillydallying
tactics. The learned Rent Controller observed that the Court has no jurisdiction to
extend the time for the purpose of tendering the rent in view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation,
2002 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514 and as such, the order of eviction was passed on
29.03.2010. The tenants then filed statutory appeal before the learned Appellate
Authority which was also dismissed on the ground that in case of non-tendering of the
provisionally assessed rent on the date fixed, the learned Rent Controller had no other
alternative but to pass the eviction order in view of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) and also the Division Bench judgment of
this Court rendered in the case of Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, 2010 (2)
PLR 201. It was also observed by the learned Appellate Authority that the tenants had
not disclosed the date of death of their relative (father-in-law).

Aggrieved against the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below, the
present revision petition has been filed in which learned counsel for the
petitioners/tenants has argued that in view of Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of
the Rules & Orders, the learned Rent Controller was obliged to fix the date for proper
orders on the next working day instead of deciding the same on that day as the date
given by the learned Rent Controller for tendering of rent fell on Sunday. In support of
his submission, he has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered
in the case of Joint Hindu Family Trading Firm (Registered Firm) Matu Ram Puran
Chand v. Firm Bansi Dhar Daiai, 1976 PU 613. He has also submitted that pursuant to
the order of notice of motion, the tenants have already deposited the arrears of rent.

In reply, leaned counsel for the respondent/landlady has submitted that there is no
error in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and the judgment relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants in the case of Joint Hindu
Family Trading Firm (Registered Firm) Matu Ram Puran Chand (supra) is not at all
applicable to" the present case in view of the fact that the latter part of Rule 4 of
Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders, which has been basically relied
upon by the tenants, has already been deleted vide correction slip No. 32 dated
07.05.1988. He also submitted that the tenants have not even complied with the order
of notice of motion passed in this case in its true letter and spirit as they had
deposited the arrears of rent beyond the period of 10 days which was granted to them
by this Court.

I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and have perused the available
record with their able assistance.

Before referring to the facts of this case, it would be relevant to refer to Rule 4 of
Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules 8<. Orders, which is as under; -

Rule 4 Chapter 1 Part K Volume 1

"4. Adjournment caused by absence of the Judge of unexpected holiday. On the

occurrence of an unanticipated holiday or in the event of the Presiding Officer of a
Court being absent owing to sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all cases fixed
for the day in_ question deemed to have been automatically adjourned to the next
working day when the Presiding Officer is present and it shali be the duty of the
parties or their counsel (but not of witnesses) to attend Court on that day.

Whenever possible the Presiding Officer should, as soon as may be, fix fresh dates in
 see Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBO Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Pages Monday, August 15, 2022
_ , Printed For: Mr. Sarvadaman Oberoi
r5^31;3 j SCO Online Web Edition: http://w\vw.scconline.com
7.. , , ,,
Jiw surai uxufio legal mcam:/
© 2022 EEC Publishing
^
Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow. 1^

cases fixed for the date which is declared a hoiiday or for which he has obtained leave,
and issue notices to the parties, their counsel and witnesses, of the fresh dates fixed.

In the case of a Small Cause Court where there are Additional Judges, the provisions
of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Provincial Small Cause Act (IX) of 1887) should
be followed."

The aforesaid Rule was interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Joint Hindu Family Trading Firm (Registered Firm) Matu Ram Puran Chand (supra) in
which the facts of the case were that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery, in which
respondent No. 2 was served personally and he put in appearance on behalf of himself
and respondent No. 4. Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 were served through publication, but
they did not appear on 04.07.1966. On that date, the learned Subordinate Judge did
not hold the Court and the case was set down for hearing for the next day. On
05.07.1966, respondent Nos. 3 & 5 again did not appear and were proceeded against
ex-parte. After recording of the evidence, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit
against the respondents which was set aside in appeal. It was argued on behalf of the
appellants in that case that in terms of Rule 4 of Chapter I-K of Volume I of the High
Court Rules and Orders, in the event of absence of the Presiding Officer, all the cases
fixed for the day in question shall be deemed to have been adjourned to the next
working day when the Presiding Officer is present and it was the duty of the parties to
attend the Court on that date. The Division Bench in this regard observed that: -

"4. No doubt the parties are enjoined by the first part of the rule to attend the Court
on the next working day but a corresponding duty is also cast by the latter part of the
rule on the Presiding Officer to fix a fresh date in the suit and inform the parties, the
counsel and witnesses of the same. The parties are required to attend on the next
working day, it appears to enable the Court to fix a date in their presence and to avoid
thereby the necessity of the communication of the date fixed. That is why the rule
does not authorize the Court to take further proceedings in the suit and oniy envisages
the fixation of the next date. If the parties of their counsel are present then the next
date of hearing would be made known to them, but if they are not present, they have
to be informed of the same.

5. Even if it may be accepted that the said rule is also capable of the interpretation as
suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants it has to be avoided for it is now
well settled that the rules of procedure are hand maid to the administration of Justice
meant to advance its cause and not to defeat the same. Moreover, the view of this
Court, consistently has been that in the event of a Presiding Officer of a Court being
absent on the date fixed for the hearing of a case, no order to the prejudice of the
absentee parties on the following day would be passed and the Court should fix
another date and issue fresh notice to the absentee party and to the witnesses."

The aforesaid judgment rendered in the case of Joint Hindu Family Trading Firm
(Registered Firm) Matu Ram Puran Chand (supra) would not be applicable in the
present case in view of the fact that it has dealt with the latter part of the Rule 4 of
Chapter 1, Part K, Volume I of the Rules & Orders which provides that ''^whenever
possible the Presiding Officer should, as soon as may be, fix fresh dates in cases fixed
for the date which is declared a holiday or for which he has obtained leave, and issue
notices to the parties, their counsel and witnesses, of the fresh dates /vxed-'-and this
part of the Rule 4 has been deleted vide correction slip No. 32 dated 07.05.1988 and
is no more available as a part of Rule 4. Meaning thereby, in case of an unanticipated
holiday or in the event of the Presiding Officer of a Court being absent owing to
sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all cases fixed for the day in question shall
 see Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBe Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 IVIonday, August 15, 2022
Printed For; Mr. Sarvadaman Oberoi i
['SMLkHjiiS ^ see online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
„ ,
Jm surest luaifto legal research!
© 2022 EBG Publishing^ Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow. 16

be deemed to be automatically adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding
Officer is present and it shall be the duty of the parties or their counsel (but not of
witnesses) to attend the Court on that day. The question of issuance of notice to the
parties, which was provided by the latter part of this Rule and has been interpreted in
the case ot Joint Hindu Family Trading Firm (Registered Firm) Matu Ram Puran Chand
(supra), has already been deleted in the year 1988.

Thus, the first question, which has been framed in the beginning of the judgment, is
decided accordingly.

Now the second question involved in this revision petition is that if the adjourned date
is not an unanticipated holiday but a holiday already declared in the calendar for the
judicial Courts for the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh or is a Sunday,
then in that circumstance. Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules Si Orders
would not be applicable because it deals with only an unanticipated holiday and not a
holiday which is already known. In this regard, no rule is brought to the notice of the
Court by the counsel for the parties and in these circumstances, the parties appearing
before the Court in such type of cases, can always pray for a date for proper orders.

Reverting back to the merits of the case, it would be relevant to mention that it was
Sunday on 28.03.2010, the date which was fixed for tendering of rent by the tenants
and consequently, the learned Rent Controller took up the case on the next working
day on 29.03.2010, but on that date, the counsel for the tenants did not ask for fixing
a date for proper orders, rather he prayed for extension of time on the ground that the
tenants has not come forward for the purpose of tendering rent due to death of a close
relative. They did not lead any prima facie evidence in this regard from which the
Court could have found that the reason assigned by the counsel for the tenants is not
a ploy to seek extension of time for the purpose of tendering rent because it is
possible that on that date the tenants were not having arrangement of the rent to be
paid as it is evident from the fact that while issuing notice of motion in this case,
dispossession of the petitioners/tenants was stayed subject to their clearing the entire
arrears of rent within 10 days from the said date, but despite that order, the tenants
tendered the rent beyond the period of 10 days as it was deposited on 10.09.2010,
whereas it was required to be deposited on 09.09.2010. The learned Appellate
Authority had also found that the tenants have not disclosed the alleged date of death
of their relative, therefore, they were disbelieved on this account as well.

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances mentioned here-in-above, the
present revision petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby
dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.
 17
IN THE COURT OF DR. D.N. BHARDWAJ,
LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
GURUGRAM CRM NO.528 OF 2022
IN
CRM NO.227 OF 2022
NDOH: 19.08.2022(Not an Unanticipated Holiday)
IN THE MATTER OF:

Saivadaman Singh Oberoi Applicant

Versus
State of Haiyana and others Defendants

APPLICATION U/S 362 CRPC RAV 151 & 152 CPC FOR PASSING ORDERS /
NOTICE FIXING FRESH DATE OF HEARING OF ARGUMENTS ON OR AFTER
20.08.2022, OR PASSING ANY OTHER ORDER AS MAY BE LA\VFUL,IN VIEW OF
INADVERTENT ERROR OF ORDERING OF HEARING OF ARGUMENTS ON
19.08.2022, NOT BEING AN UNANTICIPATED HOLIDAY IN THE MATTER CRM
NO. 227 OF 2022 TITLED SARVADAMAN SINGH OBEROI V. STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS PERTAINING TO SECTIONS 30 i& 31 OF THE
PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT.1993.(Surinder Kumar v. Smt.Leela Devi,
2011 see OnLine PH 3669, 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 393 & Mst Dhapan v. Ram Saran,ILR
1957(1)PH 746 RELIED UPON)

Most respectfully submitted:

1. That this is an Application u/s 362 CrPC r/w 151 & 152 CPC for passing orders / notice
fixing fresh date of hearing of arguments on or after 20.08.2022, or passing any other
order as may be lawful, in view ofinadvertent error of ordering of hearing of arguments
on 19.08.2022, not being an unanticipated holiday which has only been noticed by
applicant on 15.08.2022, in this matter pertaining to Sections 30 & 31 ofthe Protection
of Human Rights Act, 1993. (Surinder Kumar v. Smt. Leela Devi, 2011 (3) RCR
(Civil) 393, 2011 SCC OnLine PH 3669 & Mst Dhapan v. Ram Saran,ILR 1957(1)
PH 746 relied upon)
2. That the following orders have so far been passed in this matter: /
29.04.2022

"CRM-227-2022 CNR No. HRGR01-0064J0-2022

San>adaman Singh Oberoi Vs. State ofHaiyana
Present: Revisionist/applicant San>adaman Singh Oberoi in person
An application under Section 44 of Indian Evidence Act, 1908 presented today. It be
checked and registered. Notice ofthe application be given to Statefor 11.05.2022 onfiling
copy etc.

(Dr.D.N.Bhardwaj)
Additional Sessions Judge,
29.04.2022 Gurugrani. UIDNo.HR-0100"
 18
05.05.2022

'•CRM-227-2022 CNR No. HRGRO1-006410-2022

Sai-\>adaman Singh Oberoi Vs. State ofHaiyana

Present: Revisionist/applicant Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi in person
File put up before me as Dr. D.N. Bhardwaj, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram
is on leave.

An application under Section 61 Cr.F.C. along with two Annexures i.e. Application to
review and Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 383 of 2016 are presented before the
undersigned being Duty Judge.
Let these documents be put up before learned Presiding Officer on the date fixed i.e.
11.05.2022forfurther proceedings. File be sent back to concerned Courtforthwith.
(Phalit Sharma)
L/Additional Sessions Judge,
Gurugram. UID No.HR-0105
05.05.2022"
06.05.2022

••CRM-227-2022 CNR No. HRGRO1-006410-2022

Saiwadaman Singh Oberoi Vs. State ofHaiyana

Present: Revisionist/applicant Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi in person
File taken up today on the application of revisionistfor dasti notice. Amended memo of
parties has also beenfiled. The case isfixedfor 11.05.2022. So, notice, apartfrom ordinaiy
process, be also given dasti to the applicantfor date fixed i.e. 11.05.2022 on filing copy
etc.

(Dr.D.N.Bhardwaj)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gurugram. UID No.HR-0100
06.05.2022"
11.05.2022

••CRM-227-2022 CNR No. HRGROl-006410-2022

Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi Vs. State ofHaiyana

Present: Revisionist/applicant Sai-vadaman Singh Oberoi in person
Ms. Meenakshi, Public Prosecutorfor State
Ms. Meenakshi, Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of State. LCR has also been
received. Now, case is adjourned to 27.05.2022for arguments.
(Dr.D.N.Bhardwaj)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gurugram. UID No.HR-0100
11.05.2022"
 19
22.05.2022

•'CRM-227-2022 CNR No. HRGROl-006410-2022

San>adaman Singh Oberoi Vs. State ofHaiyana

Present: Revisionist/applicant Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi in person
Ms. Meenakshi, Public Prosecutor for State
Today the case isfixed for arguments. Arguments not advanced. Adjournment is requested.
Heard and allowed. Now, case is adjourned to 19.08.2022for arguments.
(Dr.D.N.Bhardwaj)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gurugrani. UID No.HR-0100
27.05.2022"
3. That in Mst Dhapan v. Ram Saran, ILR 1957 (1) PH 746, it was held (in a case of
unanticipated holiday and not a preordained holiday as in this case)by Bhandari C.J., that
"The petitioner who had preferred an appeal to the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge at
Gurgaon,failed to appear in Court on the 28th August, 1954, when it was to come upfor
hearing. Fortunately,for her 28th August, was declared a holiday and all cases which were.
fixedfor that date were automatically adjourned to the 30th August, 1954, which was the
next working day. The petitioner was not present in Court on that day either The rule
does not require that all cases which are adjourned shall be heard on the next working day.
All that it requires is that the parties or their counsel shall attend Court on the next day, if
possible, so that the next date ofthe hearing should befixed in their presence It may be
that the petitioner in the present case did not appear in Court on the 30''' August, 1954, but
it must be remembered that nothing was to be done that day. The parties were to be called
and the case was to be set down for hearing on another date It has been held
repeatedly that where the date fixed for hearins a case happens to be a holiday, the Court
is in no way justified in takins up the case on the followins day and in vassins any order

to the prejudice ofany ofthe absent parties without duly servine upon him a fresh notice
ofthe hearins."

4. In Surinder Kumar v. Smt.Leela Devi,2011 SCC OnLine PH 3669 it was held "T/te
questions oflaw inyolyed in this revision petition are as under:-
a) whether in a case ofan unanticipated holiday, the Presiding Officer ofa Court is
obliged tofix afresh datefor proper orders on the next working day in terms ofRule 4
ofChapter 1, PartK, Volume 1 ofthe Rules & Orders ofPunjab & Haiyana High Court
or can pass an effective order on the next working day?
b) whether if the holiday is not unanticipated, but the case is adjourned by the
Presiding Officer to a Sunday or a declared holiday, is he required to fix a date for
 20
proper orders by taking up the case on the next working day?
"4. Adjournment caused by absence of the Judge of unexpected holiday. On the
occurrence of an unanticipated holiday or in the event of the Presiding Officer of a
Court being absent owing to sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all casesfixed
for the day in question deemed to have been automatically adjourned to the next
working day when the Presiding Officer is present and it shall be the duty ofthe parties
or their counsel (but not of witnesses) to attend Court on that day. Whenever possible
the Presiding Officer should, as soon as may be,fixfresh dates in casesfixedfor the
date which is declared a holiday orfor which he has obtained leave, and issue notices
to the parties, their counsel and witnesses, ofthefresh datesfixed the latter
part ofthe Rule 4 ofChapter 1, Part K, Volume Iofthe Rules & Orders which provides
that 'whenever possible the Presiding Officer should, as soon as may be,fixfresh dates
in casesfixedfor the date which is declared a holiday orfor which he has obtained
leave, and issue notices to the parties, their counsel and witnesses, ofthefresh dates
fixed" and this part of the Rule 4 has been deleted vide correction slip No. 32 dated
07.05.1988 and is no more available as a part ofRule 4. Meaning thereby, in case of
an unanticwated holidav or in the event ofthe Presiding Officer ofa Court beins absent

owins to sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all cases fixed for the day in

question shall be deemed to be automatically adjourned to the next workins day when

the Presiding Officer is present and it shall be the duty of the parties or their counsel

(but not ofwitnesses) to attend the Court on that day. Thus, thefirst question, which
has beenframed in the beginning ofthejudgment, is decided accordingly.
Now the second question involved in this revision petition is that ifthe adjourned date
is not an unanticipated holiday but a holiday already declared in the ealendarfor the
judicial Courtsfor the States ofPunjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh or is a Sunday,
then in that circumstance. Rule 4 ofChapter I, Part K, Volume 1 ofthe Rules & Orders
would not be applicable because it deals with only an unanticipated holiday and not a
holiday which is already known. In this regard, no rule is brought to the notice ofthe
Court by the counselfor the parties and in these circumstances, the parties ayyearins
before the Court in such type ofcases, ean always pray for a date for proper orders...."

5. Hence this application may be heard for further decision on 20.08.2022 or any other date
as may be convenient for decision in accordance with the twin ratio laid down as(1)"where
the date fixed for hearing a case happens to be a holidav. the Court is in no way justified

in takins up the case on the followins day and in vassins any order to the prejudice ofany
 21
ofthe absent parties without, duly sen'ins upon him a fresh notice ofthe hearins."(2)''the
parties ayyeanns before the Court in such tyye ofcases, can always pray for a date for

proper orders".
PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that hearing ofthis application for fi-esh
notice of hearing and for fixing dates for proper orders be taken up in the interests
ofjustice on or after 20.08.2022, as plaintiff is proceeding for hearing at Hon'ble
High Court on 16.08.2022 & 17.08.2022.
Place: Gurugram
Date: 16.08.2022

Applicant
Sarvadaman Siiigh Oberoi
II02, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden, Sector 47, Gurugram 122018
Mob: 9818768349, Email: [email protected]
 22
NOTE: With a humble request that assignment/ entrustment of this CM be kindly made in
harmony with law, applied in Judgement and Order dated 29.08.2022 passed by Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Aman Chaudhary, in CRM-29528-2022 in CRM-M-38800-2018 titled indu Jain v. State
of Haryana & others (CRM annexed) in compliance of Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young
Lawyers Association (2020)2 SCC 1 (5 J), SCC pp.I4-15 para 4 "is essential to adhere to judicial
discipline and propriety when more than one petition is pending on the same, .similar or overlapping
issues in the same courtfor which all cases must proceed together."rMischief Legal Malicel
IN THE COURT ClVliL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION), GURUGRAM
CM NO.682 OF 2022

NDOH: 17.12.2022(An Unanticipated Hoiiday)

THE MATTER OF:

NEMO (all affected minors) through next friend, Lt Col (Veteran) Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
...Applicant Petitioner
V ersus
Union of India through The Secretaiy, Ministry of Ayush, Government of India & others
... Defendants

Overlapping with CS 4336 of 2022 [Sh. Anil Kumar Yadav, CJ(JD)] DOD:04.11.2022
IGRAVE VIOLATION OF Judgement and Order dated 29.08.2022 passed by Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Aman Chaudhary, in CRM-29528-2022 in CRM-M-38800-2018]

Overlapping with CM 98 of 2022 [Sh. Saurabh Sharma, CJ(.JD)] NDOH:07.01.2023

INDEX

PARTICULARS DATE PAGE

NO
Application u/s 151 CPC r/w Order 32 & 33 CPC in Civil Suit 315 of 2022 with
restitution (Remedy and Reparation, including Restitution, Compensation,
Rehabilitation, Apology mid Publication under Customajy International Law in
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/147 dated 16.12.2005 in harmony
with law laid down in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. 2003 (8)
SCC 648, Delhi Development Authority' v. R.S. Jindal, 2007 (99) DRJ 90 and
Sivarajan K. v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 Ker 98,1997 SCC OnLine Ker 171)
1. under CIL for passing order today fixing final dale for filing reply to Application 17.12.22 2-8
dated 31.10.2022 u/s 151 CPC [Article 375 Parens Patriae Jurisdiction of this
Court, Sheoli Hati v. Soranath Das,(2019) 7 SCC 490] r/w Rule 6 of Order 33.
CPC. r/w Rule 11 of Order 7. CPC r/w Customary International Law/ Articles 14,
19, 21, 375, 253 & 51 ofthe Constitution ofIndia as held in Pratap Singh v. State
of Jharkhand,(2005)3 SCC 551 (5J)[ANNEXURE P-180, VOL. VII pp.4390-
4430] and u/s 44 Indian Evidence Act r/w Order 6 Rule 17, Orders 32 & 33
\improper listing ofoverlapping cases] with affidavit '
5. ANNEXURE P-333: I956.12.i4 Mst Dhapan v. Ram Saran, ILR 1957(1) PH 746 14.12.56 9-12
6. ANNEXURE P-334: Surinder Kumar v. Smt. Leela Devi, 2011 SCC OnLine PH 3669 25.05.11 13-16
Place: Gurugram
Date: 17.12.2022
k b
Applicant
Sar\'adaman Singh Oberoi
1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden, Sector 47, Gurugram 122018
Mob: 9818768349. Email: manioberoilSigmail.com
 23
NOTE: With a humble request that assignment/ entrustrnent of this CM be kindly made in
harmony with law applied in Judgement and Order dated 29.08.2022 passed by Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Aman Chaudhars", in CRM-29528-2022 in CRM-M-38800-2G58 titled Indu Jain v. State
of Harj^ana & others (CRM annexed) in compliance of Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young
Lawyers Association (2020)2 SCC I (5 J), SCC pp.I4-15 para 4 "is essenikd lo adhere lojudicial
discipline and propriety when more ihan one peliiiun is pending, on the same, similar or overlapping
issues in Ihe same court for which all cases must proceed Iope!her."[Mischief Legal Nfalice]
IN THE COURT CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION), GURUGRAM
CM NO. 682 OF 2022

NBOH: 17.12.2022(An Unanticipated Holiday)

IN THE MATTER OF:

NEMO (all affected minors) through next friend, Lt Col (Veteran) Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
...Applicant Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through The Secretaiy, Ministry of Aytish, Government of India & others
... Defendants

APPLICATION U/S 151 CPC FOR PASSING ORDER TODAY FIXING FINAL DATE
FOR FILING I^PLY TO APPLICATION 31.10.2022 UNDER ORDER 32 & 33 CPC
IN CIVIL SUIT 315 OF 2022 WITH RESTITUTION UNDER OIL,TODAY BEING AN
UNANTICIPATED HOLIDAY IN THE MATTER CM NO. 682 OF 2022 TITLED
NEMO V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS(Surinder Kumar v. Smt. Leeia Devi,2011
SCC OnLine PH 3669, 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 393 & Mst Dhapan v. Ram Saran, ILR 1957
(1)PH 746 RELIED UPON)
Overlapping with CS 4336 of 2022 [Sh. .Anil Kumar Yadav, C.I(JD)] DOD;{}4.1i.2022[
GRAVE VIOLATION OF Judgement and Order dated 29.08.2022 passed by Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Aman Chaudhaiy, in CRM-29528-2022 in CRM-M-38800-20181

Overlapping with CM 98 of 2022 [Sh. Saurabh Sharma, CJ(.[D)] NDOH:07.01.2023

Most respectfully submitted;

1. That this is an Application u/s 151 CPC r/w Order 32 & 33 CPC in Civil Suit 315 of
2022 with restitution (Remedy and Reparation, including Restitution, Compensation,
Rehabilitation, Apology and Publication under Customaiy International Law in United Nations
General Assembly Resolution 60/147 dated 16.12.2005 in liarmoity with law laid down in
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of fvI.P. 2003 (8) SCC 648, Delhi Development
Authority v. R.S. Jindal, 2007(99)DRJ 90 and Sivarajan K. v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998
Ker 98,1997 SCC OnLine Ker 171) under GIL for passing order today fixing final date for
filing reply to Application dated 31.10.2022 u/s 151 CPC [Article 375 Parens Patriae
Jurisdiction of this Court, Shcoli Hati v. Somnath Das,(2019) 7 SCC 490] r/w Rule 6 of
Order 33. CPC. r/w Rule 11 of Order 7. CPC r/w Customaiy International Law/ Articles 14,
19, 21, 375, 253 & 51 of the Constitution of India as held in Pratap Singh v. State of

V
I\ • . I.I, N-/
v./ I' "tY rt 1I
kf ■ 1
iT ^ ■ . i -S "■'X-

fi -.r '■ rr" n

 24
Jharkhand,(2005)3 SCC 551 (5J)[ANNEXURE P-180, VOL. VII pp.4390-4430] and u/s
44 Indian Evidence Act r/w Order 6 Rule 17, Orders 32 & 33 [improper listing ofoverlapping
cases before different courts at Gurugram; Judgement and Order dated 29.08.2022 passed by
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhaiy, in CRM-29528-2022 in CRM-M-38800-2018 titled
Indu Jain v. State of Haryana and Others read with Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young
Lawyers Association,(2020)2 SCC 1 (5J) at SCC pp.14-15 para 4 "is essential to adhere to
judicial discipline and propriety when more than one petition is pending on the same, similar
or overlapping issues in the same courtfor which all cases must proceed together."] to place
on record overlapping "next friend" in forma pauperis Civil Suit No. 4336 of 2022 titled
NEMO thi-ough next friend Lt Col (Veteran) Saiwadaman Singh (less annexures) filed on
28.10.2022 today being an unanticipated holiday in the matter CM No. 682 of 2022 titled
NEMO V. Union of India and others (Surinder Kumar v. Smt. Leela Devi, 2011 SCC OnLine
PH 3669, 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 393 & Mst Dhapan v. Ram Saran, ILR 1957 (1) PH 746
RELIED UPON)(Surinder Kumar v. Smt. Leela Devi, 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 393, 2011
SCC OnLine PH 3669 & Mst Dhapan v. Ram Saran,ILR 1957(1)PH 746 relied upon)
2. That on 31.10.2022 the learned court ordered that "Today the case wasfixedforfurther
arguments on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However, at this stage, Lt. Col.
(Veteran) San'adaman Singh Oberoi appearing on behalf ofplaintiff moved an application
under Section 151 CPC (Article 375 parens partriae Jurisidiction of this Court) andfurther
submitted that he willfurther argue on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only after
decision of the instant application under Section 151 CPC (Article 375 parens partriae
Jurisidiction ofthis Court) moved by him today. Copy ofaforesaid application supplied to the
opposite parties. Adjournment soughtjointly by learned counselsfor both the parties. Now to
come up on 12.12.2022forfiling reply and consideration on the aforesaid application as well
asforfurther arguments on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC."
3. That on 12.12.2022 the reply was not filed to application under Article 375 parens
partriae Jurisidiction ofthis Court, and learned court was pleased to extend the date for filing
reply to application under 375parenspartriae Jurisidiction ofthis Court to 17.12.2022.
4. That today also no reply has been filed by defendants to application under Article 375
parens partriae Jurisidiction ofthis Court.
5. That in this background there is now a need to recapitulate the manner in which the
State organs are obstructing justice, are clearly in legal malice and under looming threat of
being reported to Hon'ble High Court for launching ofproceedings of contempt ofthe repeated
violaions ofthe orders of this learned court since February 2022.
 4

25
6. That on 15.02.2022 this learned court passed order recording "Adjournment requested
on behalfofappearing defendantsforfiling written statement and reply to stay application."
fixing next date of hearing 22.02.2022. That on 22.02.2022and till 17.12.2022 the defendants
have not sought any pennission for extending the date of filing the WS and have also not filed
any WS till 17.12.2022, today. This amounts to contumacious conduct for an ordinaiy litigant
the organs of State are seen to be iimnune to the ordinaiy law of this land.
7. That on 11.03.2022 this learned court passed order recording "Hefurther emphasized
that before deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, his injunction application be
decidedfirst. At this stage, learned counselfor the defendants sought adjournmentforfiling
reply to the stay application. Heard. Considering the submissions raised by learned counsels
for both theparties, now to come up on 15.03.2022forfiling reply and consideration on the
injunction application."
8. That on the next date of hearing 15.03.2022 and till 17.12.2022 the defendants have not
sought any pennission for extending the date offiling the WS and have also not filed any reply
to injunction application till 17.12.2022, today. This amounts to contumacious conduct for an
ordinaiy litigant the organs of State are seen to be immune to the ordinaiy law of this land.
That this delay has also led to estopping this learned court from passing the injunction order
from 15.03.2022 to 02.05.2022 [SC judgement declaring it illegal to use coercive measures,
enforce travel restrictions, enforce masking, enforce intrusive testing, giving sops and
enticements so as inject vaccination sans informed voluntary consent upon persons] and
resulting in millions of people in India were denied the benefit such injunction would have
given to unwilling persons from 15.03.2022 to 02.05.2022 who got vaccinated only because of
coercive(now declared illegal under 9judges bench 2017judgement in re Justice Puttaswamy)
measures ofthe Disaster Management Act, 2005 Section 25.
9. That on 04.04.2022, in harmony with law laid down in Kanwar Singh Saini v. High
Court of Delhi,(2012)4 SCC 307 basis Order 3 Rule 1, CPC this learned court passed order
recording "5. Arguments on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC not advanced. Reply to
the application under Order 39Rule 1 & 2 CPC notfiled. Reply to the application Under Order
6 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC notfiled. It is submitted by Lt. Col. (Veteran)
Savardaman Singh Oberoi appearing on behalfofplaintiffthat the defendants are intentionally
lingering on the matter and some official representative on behalfofdefendants department be
present to clarify certain facts in the present case. Adjournment sought by learned counsels
appearing on behalf of defendants. Heard. Now, on the request of learned Counsels for
defendants, the case is adjourned to 16.04.2022forfiling reply and arguments on aforesaid
 26
application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Order 1 Ride 10 CPC. Reply to the the
application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC shall also befiled on the next date of hearing.
Arguments on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC shall also he heard on the datefixed.
In the interest ofjustice, some official representativefrom the defendants department be also
present on the datefixed."
10. That on the next date of hearing 16.04.2022 and till 17.12.2022 the defendants have not
sought any permission for not attending in person to clarify their stand on injunction and are
also not attending in person to clarify their stand on injunction till 17.12.2022, today. This
amounts to contumacious conduct and ordinarily this learned court is bound to report this to
Hon'ble High Court as a contempt of court proceedings before Hon'ble High Court under
Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi,(2012)4 SCC 307 basis Order 3 Rule 1, CPC.
As compared to an ordinai-y litigant the organs of State are now seen to be immune to the
ordinary law of this land. This is constitutionally impermissible. That this delay has also led to
estopping this learned court from passing the injunction order from 15.03.2022 to 02.05.2022
[SCjudgement declaring it illegal to use coercive measures, enforce travel restrictions, enforce
masking, enforce intrusive testing, giving sops and enticements so as inject vaccination sans
infoimed voluntary consent upon persons] and resulting in millions of people in India were
denied the benefit such injunction would have given to unwilling persons from 15.03.2022 to
02.05.2022 who got vaccinated only because of coercive(now declared illegal under 9 judges
bench 2017 judgement in re Justice Puttaswamy) measures of the Disaster Management Act,
2005 Section 25.

11. That latest media reports on 17.12.2022 suggest "Two days after Union Law Minister
Kiren Rijiju, pointing to the high pendency of cases, said if the Supreme Court "starts hearing
bail applications... all frivolous PlLs" it will add "a lot of extra burden on the Court", a bench
led by'Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud remarked Friday "it is in the seemingly small
and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of the moment, both in
jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge".The bench, also comprising Justice P S
Narasimha, said that "right to personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognised by
the Constitution" and lack of intervention by the Cotirt can even lead to "serious miscarriage
ofjustice"."
httDs://www.msn.coin/en-in/news/other/dutv-to-stei)-in-even-in-small-matters-guard-libeitv-cii-after-riiiiu-s-remark/ar-

AA15nkG J?ocid=iTisedgdhD&DC=US31 &cvid=bb64cef8bd454b43b9cf9affl d3778d8

12. That in Mst Dhapan v. Ram Saran, ILR 1957(1)PH 746, it was held (in a case of
unanticipated holiday as in this case) by Bhandari C.J., that "The petitioner who hadpreferred
 27
an appeal to the Court ofthe Senior Sub-Judge at Gurgaon,failed to appear in Court on the
28th August, 1954, when it was to come upfor hearing. Fortunately,for her 28th August, was
declared a holiday and all cases which werefixedfor that date were automatically adjourned
to the 30th August, 1954, which the next working day. The petitioner was not present in
Court on that day either The ride does not require that all cases which are adjourned shall
be heard on the next working day. All that it requires is that the parties or their counsel shall
attend Court on the next day, ifpossible, so that the next date ofthe hearing should befixed in
their presence It may be that the petitioner in the present case did not appear in Court on
the so"' August, 1954, but it must be remembered that nothing M>as to be done that day. The
parties were to be called and the case was to be set doM'nfor hearing on another date It
has been held repeatedly that where the date fixed for hearins a case happens to be a holiday,
the Court is in no way justified in takins up the case on the followins day and in passins any

order to the preiudice ofany ofthe absent parties without duly sei-vins upon him a fresh notice
ofthe hearins."

13. However with the change in law, it was held in Surinder Kumar v. Smt. Leela Devi,
2011 see OnLine PH 3669 it was held "The questions oflaw involved in this revision petition
are as under:-

a) whether in a case ofan unanticipated holiday, the Presiding Officer ofa Court is obliged
tofix afresh datefor proper orders on the next working day in terms ofRule 4 of Chapter 1,
Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders ofPunjab & Haiyana High Court or can pass an
effective order on the next, working day?
b) whether if the holiday is not unanticipated, but the case is adjourned by the Presiding
Officer to a Sunday or a declared holiday, is he required to fix a datefor proper orders by
taking up the case on the next working day?
"4. Adjournment caused by absence ofthe Judge ofunexpected holiday. On the occurrence of
an unanticipated holiday or in the event ofthe Presiding Officer ofa Court being absent owing
to sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all casesfixedfor tlie day in question deemed to
have been automatically adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding Officer is
present and it shall be the duty ofthe parties or their counsel(but not of witnesses) to attend
Court on that day. Wlteneverpossible the Presiding Officer should, as soon as may be,fixfresh
dates in casesfixedfor the date which is declared a holiday orfor which he has obtained leave,
and issue notices to the parties, their counsel and witnesses, of the fresh dates
fixed the latterpart ofthe Rule 4 ofChapter 1,PartK, VolumeIofthe Rules & Orders
which provides that "whenever possible the Presiding Officer should, as soon as may be,fix
 /

28
fresh dales in casesfixed for the date which is declared a holiday or for which he has obtained
leave, and issue notices to the parlies, their counsel and witnesses, ofthe fresh datesfixed"
and this part ofthe Rule 4 has been deleted vide correction slip No. 32 dated 07.05.J988 and
is no more av'uilable as a part ofRule 4. Meaning thereby, in case ofan unanticipated holiday
or in the event ofthe Presiding Officer ofa Court beins absent owinc:to sudden illness or other

iinexgected cause, all cases fixed for the day in question shall he deemed to be automatically

adjourned to the next workinir day when the Presiding Officer is present and it shall be the

duty ofthe parties or their counsel (hut not of'witnesses) to attend the Court on.that day. Thus,

the first question, which has been framed, in the beginning of the judgment, is decided
accordingly.
Now the second question involved in this revision petition is that ifthe adjourned dale is not
an unanticipated holiday but a holiday already declared in the calendarfor thejudicial Courts
for the States of Punjab, Haiyana and UT' Chandigarh or is a Sunday, then in that
circumstance, Rule 4 of Chapter I, Part K, Volume I of the Rules & Orders would not he
applicable because it deals with only an unanticipated holiday and not a holiday which is
already known. In this regard, no rule is brought to the notice ofthe Court by the counselfor
the parties and in these circumstances, the parties appearins before the Court in .such type of
cases, can always gray for a date for proper orders...."

14. Hence this application may be heard today 17.12.2022 by the link court, so as to grant
last opportunity to defendants fixing any reasonable final date for filing reply to Application
dated 31.10.2022, aforesaid, the copies having been suppled to the counsels in the court on
31.10.2022 itself.

PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that hearing of this application for grant of
last arid final opportimity to defendants fixing any reasonable final date for filing reply
to Application dated 31.10.2022 be taken up by the link court in the interests ofjustice
today itself.. - -
Place: Gurugram
Date: 17.12.2022

Applicant
Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi
1102, Tower 1, Uniworld Garden, Sector 47, Gurugram 122018
Mob: 9818768349, Email: [email protected]
 29
IN THE COURT CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION), GURUGRAM
CM NO. 682 OF 2022

NDOH: 17.12.2022(An Unanticipated Holiday)

IN THE MATTER OF:

NEMO (all affected minors) through next friend, Lt Col (Veteran) Sai-vadaman Singh Oberoi
...Applicant Petitioner
Versus
'Union ofIndiaThTbugh The Secreta^-, Ministry of Ayush;Government oflndia & others
... Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

1, Sar\'adaman Singh Oberoi, S/o Late Capt. H.S Oberoi, aged about 73 years, ICo 1102/Tower
1 Uniworld Garden 1, Sector 47 Gurugram, Haryana, Mob: 9818768349 Email
[email protected] do hereby solenmly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That applicant is applicant/for petitioner NEMO in the instant Civil Miscellaneous

Application under Section 151 CPC,and is competent to swear this affidavit on his own behalf.
2. That the accompanying application and its enclosures has been drafted by me and the
contents ofthe same are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and submissions ai'e based
upon information believed to be true.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified, on this seventeenth day of December 2022 that, to the best of my knowledge, the
contents ofthe aforesaid affidavit are true and correct and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.

DEPONENT
^ purjafc higli coj-t Isnofs char.c X ^ ^ LPA.pdf -!■ GurceC-r/D.st'ic. Cour*. in 'r.dis €> V - O X

•^ . C 6 services.ecouris.gov'.in/ccoirr.ric'i cii!nc-j^!/-:3>c-:/Cd."^.'5C- .-:hp?:-ta;c=Dc:?ialt_cd = 'iAfid^$l cc=&= ti #!• a • p

'm Hi

Civil Judge Senior Division. Gurugrsm

Case Details
CiM T'/se ; CM • crv'l- J.'I:C=LLAN=C; J- AF»L'C-i"'0
F.i;r£ M.-nts- •5i5c232; =. Ds;« S1-1C-2
: 6Sr'2C-22 ^6? srs: sr Dstf 2 i:-2d:2
CNR Kumoer ;HRGR03.00S3t1-2022

Case Stitiis
Fi's;H«j:i-ic D3:e : 21st Ocisofe.' 2C22
UtX! Hfc«plv£ ;22'Hlf/s.v2p323
CrS« Stflcie ; A'Ctimfits
Cc jt SLm't't* b'pcI Ji C'Se ; 'O'Cr.-i! JuO^t I'S^nici Divislci'. L;;t,
Petitioner and Advocate

'^
Respondent ana" Advocate
I V. L'-J DIJ C= iNS AT'-i»CJC-!

Under Secti&n{s)
Csc« cf Civil Pf3;wCv"e

ReoistrsSion Number j Judge Purcoi.oIH,.rinB

342 2222 i2.vi:.Jtje !Se-;X* Civ:® C-.) 12-*d-dC'2d
Go2.502i jC-vi', jof a 'iSe*tC" Divis cn; |;2' ii Aisei'Sfis

6S2 2-222 .C-.t".jc'se f£t-:x* C'viso^j \-r t :>ct.:c22 Ar3«-5r* 'i

3£222:2 ;C--vil .LiCfi fS«-;:c* DfViS-oil 1l-:-1-2D22 A.-SJm61S
! Hot we...
322 2022 IC-v.:.'jc^s iSei-c" OivisX'v) 2"-C1-2C-23

322 2DU i'Cr.-r. jcc» tSei.c* Divis c-^'i U '-3 51-C2-2C-23 lA-ajfTcvta i ^
322.2022 j-CiviiJjcge fEe*i;C'Divi3'0ii i: C-4-K-2C-22
<
322:2:22 IC~.t! Jjcja IS«*-c*3iv!se*ii 22-C3-:C-23 irgjme'^ts
, SO
Order Number Orcer Dale Order Details ' ^ 1^0)
t 3--i:-r:22 CoDv cf order
2 12-12-2-:22 Copy of order
2 1~-12.2022 Copy of order
4 1-12-2222 Copy cf order
5 lO-jl-ZOii Copy of order I 09;09
e 1-. ii-ci-::22 Copy of orcsr i 22-C5-2023
7 2T-:i-:222 Copy cf order
£ 31-25.2222 Copy of order
c 24-23-2:-53 _Cppv of_prder
%