SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 1443

SHIVARAJ V.PATIL, B.N.SRIKRISHNA
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Dipender Kaur Sethi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 30.10.2002 dismissing the civil revision application No. 1837 of 1995 and the order dated 22.8.2003 in C.M. No. 10021-CII of 2003 declining to recall the said order.

3. On 21.12.1989 the respondent agreed to sell certain property to the plaintiff at certain consideration. Certain amount was also received by the first respondent as earnest money. On 20.3.90 the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant in which temporary injunction was sought to restrain the respondent-defendant from alienating the suit property until further orders. It was urged by the defendant that a suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable and the plaintiff can seek redress under the Specific Relief Act for specific performance On 3.10.1991 the appellant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 115 of CPC for making appropriate amendments in the plaint to convert it into a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.12.1989. This application was allowed on 29.2.1992 despite objections made by the respondent. Th













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top