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

2016 Supreme(HP) 1128

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
Prakash Chand – Appellant
Versus
Durga Singh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr.G.D. Verma Senior Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, there is no indication that the plaint was explicitly rejected in the judgment. The document primarily discusses issues related to the dismissal of objections under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rules 97 and 101 of the CPC, the obligation of the court to frame issues before dismissing objections, and the conduct of the parties involved in the proceedings. The focus is on the execution of the eviction order and the conduct of the litigants, rather than on the rejection or acceptance of a plaint. Therefore, it can be inferred that the judgment does not specifically reject the plaint but rather addresses the procedural and substantive issues arising during the execution process. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)


JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. By the medium of this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the following reliefs have been prayed:

“(i) To call for the record of the case pertaining to execution petition No.55-1 of 2015/11 pending before the Ld-Rent Controller Court No-IV Shimla, HP titled as Durga Singh vs. Sukhdev and after examining the legality and propriety of the impugned order annexure P-5 to quash and set aside the same.

(b) To directing the executing court to decide the objections annexure P-4 in accordance with law after framing the issues and giving opportunity of evidence.”

2. The necessary facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that respondent/ decree holder had filed an application for eviction against the proforma respondent Sukhdev Sharma with respect to the premises known as Set No.1, Upper Floor House, Cart Road, Ram Singh House, Shimla. The grounds on which the eviction was sought;

(i) arrears of rent and

(ii) sub letting the premises in favour of petitioners.

3. The proforma respondent did not choose to contest the proceedings and was thus proceeded ex-parte and finally orders of eviction came to be passed on 8.12.1986.

4. On c














































































































































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