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

1997 Supreme(HP) 101

P.K.PALLI
MUNSHI RAM – Appellant
Versus
SITA RAM – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the appellant(s) :J. R, Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent(s):Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, vice K D Sood Advocate.

JUDGMENT

P K Palli, J.—As both these appeals involved common question of law and fact, the same are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have also decided these matters by a common judgment.

2. The appeals arise out of two applications filed by respondent Sita Ram under Order 34. Rule 8 of the Cod? of Civil Procedure, wherein prayed for the passing of a final decree against the appellants, which were dismissed by the trial Court as time barred, but on appeal the decision arrived at by the trial Court was set aside and the applications stand allowed These appeals have been filed by Munshi Ram and others, who were respondents before the trial Court The case has a chequered history One Diwana was the original mortgagor and he obtained two preliminary decrees for possession on July 31, Iv62 by way of redemption Both these decrees were against the mortgagees, ie9 the present appellants An appeal is said to have been filed by these mortgagees and proceedings were ordered to be stayed The appeals were dismissed by the then District Judge on January 17, 1965 and second appeal tiled before the learned Judicial Commissioner was



















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