ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, ARIJIT PASAYAT
Rameshwar Dayal Mangala @ Ramesh Chand – Appellant
Versus
Harish Chand – Respondent
Judgment :
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court disposing of an appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short `CPC).
3. The respondent as plaintiff has filed a suit for mandatory injunction. The appellant filed written statement refuting the assertions by the plaintiff. Replication was filed by the respondent. The trial court framed 11 issues and learned Subordinate Judge, 1st class, Palwal, decided issue nos. 1, 2 and 10 in favour of the respondent decreeing the suit in mandatory injunction. An appeal was preferred by the appellant which was decided by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, and was allowed. Questioning the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, second appeal was filed which was allowed by the impugned judgment. It is to be noted that cross objection was also filed in terms of Order 41 Rule 22 CPC. Though many points have been urged in support of the appeal, the primary stand is that the second appeal was allowed without formulating any substantial question of law. Learned counsel for the respo
Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal 2000 (1) SCC 434
Roop Singh v. Ram Singh 2000 (3) SCC 708
Kanhaiyalal and Ors. v. Anupkumar and Ors. 2003 (1) SCC 430
Mathakala Krishnaiah v. V. Rajagopal 2004 (10) SCC 676
Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi v. Chhatra Devi & Ors. JT 2005 (6) SC 167
GianDass v. The Gram Panchayat Village Sunner Kalan & Ors. 2006 (6) SCC 271
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.