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

2002 Supreme(Guj) 651

H.H.MEHTA
BABUBHAI H. KANADA – Appellant
Versus
NATWARLAL CHANDARANA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.R.Thakkar, R.R.TRIVEDI, SURESH M.SHAH

H. H. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE original revision petitioners of Civil Revision Application No. 348 of 1988 decided by this Court, have by preferring this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 requested this Court to condone the delay of 440 days for filing a proposed Review Petition under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Order, 47, Rule-1 of the Civil Procedure Code, being Misc. Civil Application [stamp] No. 2140 of 2001.

( 2 ) THE present petitioners and opponent Nos. 2 and 3 being tenants were the original defendants in original Regular Civil Suit [rent Suit] No. 345 of 1981 before the trial Court. The opponent No. 1 being Landlord was a plaintiff in the said suit. [the parties before this Court will be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants respectively hereinafter for the sake of convenience]. The plaintiff filed one Regular Civil Suit [rent Suit] No. 345 of 1981 in the Small Causes Court, at Rajkot on 16/12/1981, against the defendants for decree of eviction and also to recover the physical possession of the suit premises along with a prayer for money decree to recover Rs. 2,697. 64 paisa [rupees Two Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Seven and Sixt


























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