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

2005 Supreme(Raj) 1098

H.R.PANWAR
Kanhaiya Lal – Appellant
Versus
Girdharilal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Dr. A.A. Bhansali, for the Appellant.
Mr. R.K. Thanvi, (Caveator), for the Respondent.

Judgment

H.R. Panwar, J.-I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.

2. In my considered opinion, after perusing the Judgment s of both the Courts below, no substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal and concurrent findings of the Courts below require no interference. The second appeal deservers to be dismissed and same is dismissed. Since, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, therefore, applications under Order 41 Rules 27 and 28, CPC, and Order 6 Rule 17, CPC, are not maintainable and the same are also dismissed.

3. At the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the appellant-defendant is given time up to 312.2005 to vacate the suit premises on the condition that the appellant-defendant gives an undertaking before the learned trial Court within one month from today that on or before the expiry of the above period, he will peacefully hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff -respondent and that during this period, he will not, in any manner, transfer the possession of the suit premises to anybody. Likewise, the entire decretal amount, so also all arrears of rent, if any, shall be dep




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