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

2023 Supreme(Del) 5448

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Veena Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Tika Ram – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Atul Bandhu, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Respondent in person, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral) - This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by Learned Additional District Judge in C.S. No. 1728/2016 titled as Tika Ram vs. Veena Sharma (`Trial Court') whereby, the Petitioner's right to lead evidence has been closed by the Trial Court.

1.1. The Petitioner is the original defendant and the Respondent is the original plaintiff. The civil suit has been filed for by the Respondent seeking a decree for partition of the property bearing no. 60, DDA Janta Flats, G.T.B. Enclave, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093; permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner i.e. the defendant from selling, transferring, alienating the said property and declaration with respect to relinquishment deed dated 08.12.2014 as null and void.

2. The Petitioner is present along with her counsel and has been identified by the counsel before this Court.

3. The Respondent as well is present in person and has been identified by the Petitioner.

4. The Respondent states that he was unable to engage a counsel to represent him in these proceedings due to legal costs; therefore, he will represent himself in person and a

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