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

2005 Supreme(Raj) 590

DINESH MAHESHWARI
Udai Singh – Appellant
Versus
Govind Singh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. V.D. Kalla, for the Appellants. None present, for the Respondent.

Judgment

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-The instant second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against the Judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Rajsamand dated 28.04.1983 in Civil First Appeal No. 30/82 affirming the Judgment and decree passed by the Munsif , Bheem in Civil Original Suit No. 6/81 was admitted by this Court on 13.09.1983 with the following order :-"13.09.1983 Honble Mr.M.C. Jain, J. Mr. V.D. Calla for the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant has cited a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court. Triveni Prasad Singh vs., Ramasray Choudhary, AIR 1931 Patna P. 241. In view of the above authority it appears that the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal. "Whether the present suit for possession is not barred by Section 47 of CPC." The appeal is admitted on the above question."

2. The short question, therefore, in this appeal is to consider maintainability of the suit filed by the appellant with reference to Section 47 CPC.

Brief facts relevant for the purpose of determination of this question are that the plaintiff Prem Singh (since deceased and represented by the appellants) filed a suit in the Court of






















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