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

2013 Supreme(Raj) 1417

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
Rajendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Hemendra Kumar – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellant:J.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Abhi Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:J.P. Gupta, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. - Shri J.P. Goyal, learned senior counsel for the appellant has in the course of arguments submits that a review petition has also been filed by the appellant before the learned first appellate court with regard to the impugned judgement because it has wrongly been recorded in the impugned judgement that the defendant-appellant did not press his challenge with regard to correctness of findings recorded on Issue nos. 2, 3 and 4, which also included the ground of bona fide necessity.

2. The appellant, if he has already filed review petition, cannot be simultaneously permitted to pursue this second appeal with reference to the same judgement. The first appellate court shall decide the review petition within six months after hearing both the parties. Interim order passed by this Court shall remain operative till the review petition is decided. If, however, the review petition has already been decided, this order would have no effect and the appellant shall have to seek his remedy before the appropriate court. Record is ordered to be sent back to the first appellate court for the aforesaid purpose.

3. The appeal is disposed of with the above observations.Appeal Disposed 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