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

1974 Supreme(All) 29

HARISWARUP, GOPINATH
Lakhpati Singh – Appellant
Versus
Raghunath Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
K.M. Dayal, for Petitioner.

Judgement

ORDER :- This petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings under Section 144, C.P.C. on the ground that a notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been issued in respect of the village in which the land in dispute lies.

2. Learned counsel has contended that after the trial court's decree it Was put into execution and possession was obtained by the petitioner. Thereafter an appeal had been filed by the judgement-debtor. During the pendency of the appeal consolidation proceedings commenced. The appeal and the suit accordingly abated under Section 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The judgement-debtors thereupon applied under Section 144, C.P.C., for restitution. The court below has directed the restitution. The petitioner has now challenged that order through this petition.

3. Once the suit has abated under law the effect will be that everything done by the Court in that suit will have to be reversed and the parties will have to be put back to the same position in which they were on the date of the institution of the suit. The purpose of Section 144, C.P.C. is exactly the same. Once the suit has abated no party can take advantage







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