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

1996 Supreme(SC) 413

SUJATA V. MANOHAR, A. M. AHMADI
Baldev Singh – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank – Respondent


ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

3. Respondent 2, Santokh Singh has filed a suit in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Jullundur for a declaration that the sale deed allegedly executed by Defendant 1, Baldev Singh, in favour of Defendant 2, Harbhajan Kaur, acting as power of attorney of the plaintiff is null and void and consequently the lease deed dated 10-2-1993 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. There are certain other consequential reliefs also. The question of title may, therefore, arise for determination in that suit.

4. The present special leave petition has been filed by Baldev Singh against the order dated 1-6-1995 in Civil Revision No. 2174 of 1995 whereby the High Court dismissed the revision from the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 6-4-1995 allowing the application of Santokh Singh for being impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The learned counsel for the appellant herein contends that the question of title cannot be gone into in the proceedings before the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller was in error in allowing the application and the High Court too was in error in summarily reject

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