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

1992 Supreme(All) 183

D.S.SINHA
ABDUL KALAM – Appellant
Versus
ABDUL MAJID – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AKHILESH TIVARI, HAIDAR HUSAIN, R.N.SINGHA

R. N. SINGH, J.

( 1 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist-applicant and Sri Haider Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff opposite parties, at length and in detail.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff opposite parties instituted in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, Varanasi original Suit No. 26 of 1983 against the defendant-revisionist. In the said suit the opposite parties claimed, inter alia, a decree of ejectment against the revisionist. The claim for the decree of ejectment was based on the allegation that the revisionist was the tenant in the disputed house whereof the plaintiff-opposite parties claimed to be the owner-landlords. Denying the title of the plaintiff-opposite parties and asserting himself to be the owner of the disputed house, the defendant revisionist urged the Court below to return the plaint of the suit. In support of the prayer for return of the plaint, the defendant-revisionist placed reliance on the provisions of S. 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, hereinafter called the Act. By means of its judgment and order dt. 7th Sept. , 1989, the Court below has declined to accede to the prayer of the defendant-revisionist for return of the plaint.








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