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

2007 Supreme(Del) 35

J.P.SINGH
KAMA VATI – Appellant
Versus
CHANDER BHAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.K.SHARMA, S.P.CHUGH

( 1 ) THIS application under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 has been moved on behalf of the respondents for review of the order dated 1. 8. 2005.

( 2 ) I have heard Mr. S. P. Chug, Advocate learned counsel for the applicants/respondents/plaintiffs and Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate learned counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner/defendant.

( 3 ) IT will be helpful to refer briefly to the facts of this case. The opposite party to this application had filed a petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India [c. M. (M)] against an order dated 19. 8. 2004 passed by the civil Judge, Delhi allowing an application for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned civil judge had set aside a consent order vide order dated 19. 8. 2004, which was challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said C. M. (M)was allowed by this court and the impugned order dated 19. 8. 2004 was set aside. It was directed by this court that the proceeding will commence from the stage where the same were before passing of the impugned order and the learned trial court judge was directed to make efforts to dispose o


















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