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

2019 Supreme(Raj) 1787

DINESH MEHTA
Om Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Sudi Bai – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.S. Mankad, for the Appellant.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 2.7.2019, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.3, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial court), vide which petitioner's application dated 28.5.2019, filed under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

2. Narrated in brief, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner herein had field a suit for specific performance against defendant- respondent herein, with an assertion that she had executed the sale deed dated 3.10.2018, made her thumb impression thereupon, but however, she refused to get it registered subsequently.

3. In response to the petitioner's suit, the defendant filed a written statement and while denying the averments made in the plaint, she stated that the sale deed in question was not executed by her and that the deed she executed, west meant for some agricultural land.

4. Being faced with such written statement, the petitioner filed an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 28.5.2019 and requested that the replication be permitted to be filed. Along with the appli

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