IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No.25 of 2017

Date of Decision : 23.12.2025

Gulab Singh

…… Petitioner

Versus

Tata Motors Finance Ltd. and others

……Respondents

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioner o : Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respCondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral )

The present petition has been preferred against impugned

order dated 13.08.2016, passed by the Lok Adalat.

i2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the

impugned order and the petition. The sole contention urged on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has never authorized his counsel to withdraw the objection, hence, the impugned order passed by

the Lok Adalat is contended to be non est in the eyes of law.

3. Since before the Lok Adalat, the petitioner was being represented by a counsel, therefore, a specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioner, as to whether after passing of the impugned order by the Lok Adalat, any action had been initiated against the counsel

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

who was