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

2007 Supreme(Del) 1354

J.M.MALIK
Nadir Shah – Appellant
Versus
Shashi Rajan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the appellants :Ms.Gurmeet Bindra, Advocate
For the respondent:Mr.B.B.Gupta, Advocate

J.M. MALIK, J.

1. Vide order dated 17th September, 1998, the trial court dismissed theapplication under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for impleadment of legal heirs of the plaintiff and other applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read withOrder 22 Rule 4(5) and Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in filing theabove-said application and under OrderIRule 10 CPC moved by applicant NadirShah. Adumbrated in brief, the factsof the case are these. Secunder Shah expired on 7th February, 1994, leaving behind him, his wife,Gulshan Ara Begum, three daughters, Shamshad Sultana, Munwar Sultana and Tajbar Sultana and oneson, Nadir Shah. According to the plaintiffs/applicants, the right to suesurvived in their favour and therefore, they moved the above-said applicationson April, 1996. There was a delay of 739 days in filing the application underOrder 22 Rule 3.

2. The appellants have explained the delay as follows. Secunder Shahpurchased the suit property for the benefit of his family including himself. The respondent/defendant illegally occupied the above-mentioned property. In order to recover the possession of the property from the said trespassers, a suit for recovery of possession w














































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