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

2005 Supreme(HP) 344

V.M.JAIN
PRITHI SINGH – Appellant
Versus
BAKSHI RAM – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ex:parte for the respondents.

JUDGEMENT

V. M. Jain, J.: This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 17.8.2005 passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application of the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner.

2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present petition are that Prithi Singh plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the suit land and alleging therein that the defendants were total strangers and had no right to raise any construction etc. thereon and as such the defendants be restrained from raising any construction etc. over the suit land. In the alternative, it was prayed that in case the defendants succeed in raising construction over the suit property or occupying any portion thereof, then a decree for possession by way of demolition of such construction be passed. The suit was contested by the defendants alleging that the defendants had no concern with the land of the plaintiff. It was alleged that in fact the suit land and the land of the defendants adjoined each other and there was an old






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