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

2005 Supreme(Chh) 227

V.K.SHRIVASTAVA
Chotelal Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Vishram Tumkeri – Respondent


ORDER

V.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. The plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration and injunction alongwith an application under Section 91(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to file the suit on the ground that the suit property is recorded as Gothan in revenue record and the defendants-applicants are making construction over the said property and thereby causing public nuisance and by so wrongful act affecting the public. The defendants-applicants opposed the application, and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that, the plaintiffs may avail relief from the Revenue Court under the Land Revenue Code and notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been served on the Government, therefore, the suit, being barred by law, is not tenable.

2. Learned Trial Court, vide impugned order dated 21-9-1998, allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 91(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and rejected the application filed by the defendants- applicants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Learned Counsel for both the parties are hear at length





















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