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

1999 Supreme(All) 1533

NASEEMUDDIN
VIRENDRA PRASAD NIGAM – Appellant
Versus
KALIKA SWAROOP – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mohd.Arif Khan, MOHIUDDIN KHAN, SHAFIA MIRZA

NASEEMUDDIN, J.


( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 27. 8. 99, passed by Sri S. P. Singh, IVth Additional district Judge. Barabanki in S. C. C. Suit No. 3 of 1984. whereby the suit of the plaintiff-opposite party for possession after ejeclment of the defendant-revisionist in respect of the building in suit detailed in the plaint as well as for arrears of rent and mesne profits was decreed with costs.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party were heard. This suit was earlier decided on 30. 5. 90 by the then IVth Addl. District Judge. Barabanki, acting as Judge Small Causes Court and the plaintiffs suit was, decreed at that time also for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the shop in dispute. The defendant at that time also filed Civil Revision No. III of 1990 which was decided by this Court on 18. 11. 98. The case was remanded to the Court below for decision afresh in the light of observations made in the body of the judgment. The learned trial court had to take into consideration the question relating to the age









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