D.M.REGE
Jogindersingh Ravail Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sitavanti Avtarsingh Bhasin – Respondent
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court had passed the said order without giving him any notice of the same and without complying with the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of the decree.
3. Respondent and his Advocate have remained absent. However, this order is being passed after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner on merit and after considering the material on record.
4. For appreciating the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, certain undisputed facts may be stated at the outset. The litigation relates to a room No. 1 in building No. 736 T. P. S. Plot No.111, Bandra, Bombay. Some time in 1967 respondent who is the owner of the said premises filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, being suit No. 3114 of 196
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.