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

2023 Supreme(Raj) 789

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Khand Brahmin Samaj Gudhachandra Ji Through Dinesh Chand Jaimini – Appellant
Versus
Ghanshyam S/o Shyam Sunder Sharma – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma

JUDGMENT :

1. This civil second appeal, which is reported to be time barred by 43 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity, “the Act of 1963”).

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in preferring the civil second appeal is condoned.

3. This civil second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Hindaun City (Karauli-Rajasthan) (for brevity, “the learned Appellate Court”) in Original Civil Appeal No.99/2012 (151/11) whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shri Mahavirji, District Karauli (Rajasthan) (for brevity, “the learned trial Court”) dismissing the Civil Case No.94/2001 [old 203/95 (141/98)] filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for brevity, “the plaintiff”) for permanent injunction, have been affirmed.

4. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants (for brevity, “the defendants”) stating therein that there is a residential plot measuring 80f

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