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

2003 Supreme(Raj) 1365

N.P.GUPTA
Teja Ram – Appellant
Versus
Birbal Ram – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mr. N.L. Joshi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.S. Saluja, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. - The appeal comes up for consideration of stay petition. The respondents have entered caveat, and vide order dated 1.8.2003, the appeal was admitted. However, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, that since the suit has been dismissed on a preliminary point under Order 7 Rule 11, instead of considering the stay petition, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned order is set aside, and the suit is sent back to the learned trial Court for trial on merits, and expeditious disposal.

2. In that view of the matter, I have gone through the impugned order.

3. It is informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit was filed by him on 04.04.98. From the impugned order, it transpires that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 was filed on 26.4.2003, i.e. after the disposal of the plaintiff's application for grant of Temporary Injunction, and the thrust of the application was, that the person from whom the plaintiff claim to have entered into agreement to sell, himself was also having only an agreement to sell in his favour, which has already been cancelled, and therefore, the plaintiff has no locus standi. Another contention rai




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