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

1984 Supreme(Guj) 90

R.A.MEHTA
FATEHSINHRAO PRATAPSINHRAO GAEKWAD – Appellant
Versus
SAVJIBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: G.N.DESAI, S.B.VAKIL

R. A. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) A short and simple question has taken considerable time at the lengthy hearing of this Revision Application. The question is whether the trial court was justified in granting the plaintiffs application for joining additional defendants under 0. 1 R. 10 (2) C. P. C. They are the specified authority competent authority and State Government under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976

( 2 ) THE respondent no. 1 original plaintiff has filed Special Civil Suit No. 70 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda for a declaration that the agreement and irrevocable power of attorney dt. 24/03/1977 and the affidavit-cum-declaration dt. 10/02/1978 are valid sub- sisting and binding on the defendant (the petitioner herein) and for due performance of the agreement and other directions for the said purpose and for a permanent injunction against breach of the said contract and irrevocable power of attorney and from interfering and not obstructing the opponent-plaintiff from acting thereunder and representing before the authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and for restraining the defendant from making any application f




















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