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

2002 Supreme(Del) 1228

S.B.SINHA, S.MUKERJEE, D.K.JAIN, A.D.SINGH, MADAN B.LOKUR
RAVINDER KUMAR RISHI – Appellant
Versus
SUSHMA RISHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Aman Lekhi, NIRAJ K.KAUL, Viraj Datar

S. MUKERJEE

( 1 ) A very interesting point has arisen for consideration viz whether court fee is payable on a compromise application under order 23 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the compromise decree drawn up pursuant thereto whereunder a large amount happened to be paid to the defendant.

( 2 ) IN the present case a plaint containing the following prayer was registered as a suit:-

"in the facts and circumstances of the case it is respectfully prayed that the hon ble Court be pleased to pass a decree that the Defendant deliver to the plaintiff vacant possession of the portion, more fully described in yellow in the site plan annexure herewith, of property bearing municipal number A-54, kailash Colony, New Delhi of which portion the plaintiff has been dispossessed without consent and otherwise in due course of law. "

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff in the plaint was that defendant had allegedly trespassed into the suit property on 20. 7. 1997, and had forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff of two rooms in the suit property. It was the further case of the plaintiff that the cause of action again arose on 8-8. 1997 when the defendant upon release on bail in the Case fir No. 285/97,






























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