Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Pathankot Improvement Trust, Pathankot through its Chairman – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .
1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “the RSA”) has been preferred by the appellant–defendant laying challenge to the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Trial Court was affirmed in toto. The learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.1992 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Pathankot, had decreed the suit instituted by the respondent–plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration. The appellant, being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by both the Courts below, has approached this Court asserting that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from material illegality, misappreciation of evidence, and errors apparent on the face of the record, rendering them legally unsustainable and warranting interference in the exercise of second appellate jurisdiction.
2. The facts, as emerging from the pleadings of the parties and necessary for the adjudication of the present controversy, may be briefly stated as follows:-
The plaintiff, Vinod Kumar, instituted the present sui
Second appeals in Punjab and Haryana are treated under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, emphasizing composite appeals for maintaining substantive justice rather than getting dismissed on te....
A suit for injunction is not maintainable if the plaintiff has knowledge of unclear title issues and the vendors lack the right to convey property.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
