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

2005 Supreme(P&H) 83

AJAY K.MITTAL
M. M. Katyal – Appellant
Versus
Subhash Chand – Respondent


Judgment

1. In this revision petition the challenge is to the order dated 8-9-2004 passed by the trial Court whereby an application moved by the petitioner for permission to file additional written statement has been declined.

2. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 77(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 against Bhagwan Dass for passing a decree directing the defendant to execute and register the sale deed dated 31-5-1994 in their favour. Defendant -Bhagwan Dass filed written statement and subsequently expired. The trial Court by order dated 16-7-2003 impleaded the legal representatives of deceased -Bhagwan Dass. An application was filed by the petitioner, who is the legal representative of deceased Bhagwan Dass, seeking permission of the Court to file additional written statement under Order 22, Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code"). The petitioner had sought permission to file additional written statement in order to take the following objections :-

"The alleged sale deed is unconscionable document. The submission further requires to be supported because not only it appear from the first sight of the sale deed visually that not only the sign









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