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

2013 Supreme(Pat) 108

MUNGESHWAR SAHOO
Birendra Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Sarveshwar Tiwari – Respondent


`Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant: Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma.

CAV ORDER

1. I have heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel, Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 on the interlocutory applications No.417 of 2013, I.A. No.416 of 2013 and I.A. No.400 of 2013. Since the learned counsel, Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma at the very outset raised the objection regarding maintainability of this First appeal by the appellant, I heard both the learned counsels on the maintainability of the appeal also.

2. It may be mentioned here that I.A. No.417 of 2013 has been filed by the appellant seeking leave of this Court to file this appeal against the Judgment and decree. I.A. No.416 of 2013 is the application wherein the appellant had prayed for stay of further proceeding in title suit No.234 of 2010 and I.A. No.400 of 2013 is limitation application filed by the appellant praying for condoning the delay in filing this First Appeal.

3. The appellant has filed this First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.2012 passed by Sri Krishna Pratap Singh, the learned Sub Judge III, Patna in title suit No.234 of 2010. This present appellant was not a


















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