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

2007 Supreme(P&H) 1784

RAJESH BINDAL
Bhupinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Pargat Singh – Respondent


For the Petitioner:Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Vijay Lath & Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.:- The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated January 2, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nawanshahar, whereby the application for amendment of the suit, filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant No.1 from demolishing khala/drain, shown in the site plan annexed with the plaint, or from changing the flow and course of the same. In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, the learned trial Court, vide order dated September 9, 2005, restrained the respondent/defendant No.1 from demolishing or changing the flow in the existing drain, over the spot. Thereafter, the trial of the suit continued. However, as per the allegations of the petitioner/plaintiff, during the period he was away to New Zealand, the respondent/defendant No.1 demolished the khala/drain and as consequences thereof, the petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint for seeking relief of mandatory injunction. The necessity for filing of the application for amendment of the plaint ar







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