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

1979 Supreme(P&H) 135

PREM CHAND JAIN, D.S.TEWATIA
Ram Niwas – Appellant
Versus
Mithan Lal – Respondent


Judgment

D.S.TEWATIA, J.

1. The determination of the ambit of Sub-Ss. (2)(a) and (3) of S.97 of the Civil P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act, is the legal issue of some substance that falls for consideration in this referred revision petition.

2. This revision petition, in the first instance, came up before Goyal, J. who finding himself unable to subscribe to the view enunciated by Sharma, J. in two reported decisions in Darshan Kumar V/s. Raghunandan Sharma, (1978) 80 Pun LR 368 and Surjit Singh V/s. Sardara Singh, (1978) 80 Pun LR 779 and a similar view taken in Orissa High Court decision reported in Nanda Kishore Moharana V/s. Mahabir Prasad Lath, AIR 1978 Orissa 129 and also finding a contrary view being taken in Mohan Dass V/s. Kamala Devi, AIR 1978 Raj 127, referred the matter to the larger Bench and that is how the matter is before us.

3. In order to appreciate the legal point, a reference to certain basic facts at this very stage would be relevant. The petitioner herein preferred objections under S.47 of the Civil P.C. which were dismissed by the executing Court, vide order dated 16-7-1977. Against that order, the objector preferred an ap





















































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