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

2003 Supreme(Del) 1058

B.N.CHATURVEDI, USHA MEHRA
KRISHNA PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
DILIP HAREL MITRA CHENOY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ARUN MOHAN, Arvind Bhatt, C.M.CHOPRA

B. N. CHATURVEDI, J.

( 1 ). By a judgment and decree dated 5th January, 1996, the suit of the applicant-respondent, for ejectment and mesne profits, was decreed by the Court of an Additional District Judge, Delhi. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, non applicants/defendants filed an appeal being RFA No. 181/96 before this Court on 6th April, 1996. On an application for stay of execution of the decree, by an order dated 3rd October, 1996, partial relief was granted and the execution of the decree, in so far as it related to recovery of possession, was stayed. The prayer for stay of execution of decree for mesne profits was, however, declined. The appeal was finally dismissed on 10th August, 2001.

( 2 ) NOW, review of the judgment in appeal is being sought by the applicant-respondent on the ground that the arguments advanced in relation to the rate of mesne profits for the period there was a stay of recovery of possession, which constituted part of written submissions, have gone unnoticed and as a result the same were not dealt with and there was no adjudication on that aspect of the matter. This, according to applicant/respondent, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the







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