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

DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Ved Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Aashi Tanwar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

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

2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 2nd March, 2021 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court") in C.S. No.503/2020 titled "Aashi Tanwar v. Ved Prakash & Ors." By the impugned order, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Petitioner, who was Defendant No.1 in the suit, has been dismissed by the Trial Court.

3. The suit was filed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 who were the Plaintiffs seeking partition, possession and permanent injunction, in respect of property numbers WZ-375 Basai Darapur, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi measuring 250 sq. approx. and WZ-258, Basai Darapur, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi measuring 50 sq. yards (hereinafter "suit properties"). The claim of the Plaintiff is one-fourth of the share of the deceased- Sh. Ramesh Tanwar, also known as Sh. Ram Niwas. (hereinafter "Ram Niwas")

4. The case of the Petitioner in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is that the suit properties had been purchased way by the Petitioner from Sh. Ram Niwas way back in 2001. The plaint itself admits that the partition had taken p

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