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

2012 Supreme(SC) 666

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, DIPAK MISRA
Kamlesh Ambalal Contractor – Appellant
Versus
Jakshibhai Sajanbhai Bharvad – Respondent


Judgment :-

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The application for impleadment is allowed.

2. Leave granted.

3. We heard Shri Dushyant A. Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri C.A. Sundram, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents at length. For the disposal of these appeals, we feel it unnecessary to examine the various contentions urged by learned senior counsel on either side. Reference to few facts would be suffice since we are inclined to set aside the judgments of all the courts below and direct learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) to take up Regular Civil Suit No. 516 of 2008 filed by the appellants herein for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

4. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs in RCS No. 516 of 2008 filed before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural). The suit was instituted claiming following reliefs:

“A. To declare that there is no right, title or interest of the defendants on the suit property as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of the suit.

B. To declare that defendants, their agents, servants or representatives, assignee, executor, power of attorney holder, legal heirs or















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