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

2006 Supreme(SC) 384

ARIJIT PASAYAT, TARUN CHATTERJEE
Padma Ben Banushali – Appellant
Versus
Yogendra Rathore – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in a Civil Revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’). By the impugned order the High Court held that the petitioner who was the plaintiff in the suit and the decree-holder in an earlier suit was not entitled to execute the same.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The plaintiffs had filed a civil suit for eviction of the father of respondents (Sri Narayanbhai) who was the tenant in the disputed premises. In the suit, pleadings were to the effect that suit property originally belonged to one Dhanji Bhai. Narayan had taken suit premises on rent from Dhanji Bhai. Appellant No.2 Kanji Bhai purchased the suit property in the name of his wife Padma Ben (Appellant No.1), by registered sale deed on 25.8.1980. Decree was granted in favour of the landlords. Tenant filed an appeal before the District Judge. Before the matter could be decided on merits an application purported to be under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC was filed before the Appellate Court. The application was signed by the plaintiff-la














































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