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

2006 Supreme(Pat) 316

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
Bimla Devi – Appellant
Versus
Radhyshaym Patwa @ Radhiya Patwa – Respondent


Judgment

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

1. For the reasons explained in the application of codonation of delay, the delay is condoned. The application is allowed.

2. Heard Mr. Daronachaya, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners and Mr. Shashi Sekhar Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendant-opposite party.

3. The present revision application has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioners against the order dated 11.2.2002 passed by the learned Munsif. Khagaria in a Final Decree Case No. 82/91 arising; from Title Suit No. 82/91 by which the learned Munsif has allowed the application of defendant No. 6 (the sole contesting defendent-opposite party before this court) by which he has held the suit itself to be not maintainable.

4. The facts relevant for adjudication of the case are short and not in dispute. The plaintiff-petitioners along with two others filed a Title Partition Suit No. 82/91 against their brothers and sisters as well as defendant No. 6, who was the purchaser from one of the co-sharers, for parititon of suit property as also for a decree of pre-emption as against defendant No. 6. It is not in dispute that while the suit was pending defendant No. 6 ,























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