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

DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Gagninder Kumar Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Gupta – Respondent


Table of Content
1. factual basis of the property dispute (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding the enforceability of the undertaking (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's direction on preliminary issue decision (Para 7 , 8)
4. disposal of the petition and applications (Para 9)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been held through video conferencing.

2. The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 20th May, 2020 by which the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by Defendant Nos.1&2/Petitioners (hereinafter, "Petitioners") has been rejected by the ld. Trial Court.

3. The brief background is that vide sale deed dated 11th July, 2001 and 7th August, 2003, the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter, "Respondent No.1") acquired rights in the first and second floor, with open terrace, of property bearing No. A-148, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024. Along with the sale deeds, an undertaking of the same date i.e., 11th July, 2001 was also allegedly executed by the mother of Defendant No.3/Respondent No.2 (hereinafter, "Respondent No.2").

4. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunction to enforce one c

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