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

2003 Supreme(P&H) 868

VINEY MITTAL
Surjit Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Pritam Singh – Respondent


Judgment

Viney Mittal, J.

1. At the out set, Shri R.C. Setia, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the law laid down in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors., J.T. 2003(4) S.C. 255. the present revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") is not maintainable. Shri R.C. Setia, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the present revision petition be treated as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the request made by the learned counsel, the present petition is treated to be a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The plaintiff are the petitioners. They have impugned the order dated January 19, 1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge II Class, Jagraon whereby the application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code filed by the defendant-respondents has been allowed. While allowing the aforesaid application, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert-Dr. Atul K. Singla had been ordered to be re-summoned and re-examined with respect to











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