VINEY MITTAL
Sita Ram – Appellant
Versus
Mahadi – Respondent
1. On a request made by Mr.H.N. Mehtani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, the present petition is treated to be a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner is a decree-holder. A decree for possession dated January 31, 1976 was passed in his favour by the trial Court. The defendants/judgement-debtors filed Regular First Appeal No. 482 of 1977 before this Court. Later on, because of the amendment in Punjab Courts Act and the jurisdiction of the District Judge having been enhanced, the aforesaid first appeal was transferred to District Judge for disposal. Vide judgement and decree dated May 26, 1980, the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. A Regular Second Appeal No. 1578 of 1980 was filed by the defendants before this Court. On July 18, 1980, by way of an interim order, this Court stayed the dispossession of the defendants. However, finally the Regular Second Appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by this Court on October 23, 1984. It appears from the record that a Special Leave Petition filed by the defendants also failed before the Apex Court, when the same
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.