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

1990 Supreme(All) 602

N.N.MITHAL
Raj Rani Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
Bhupinder Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
S.P.Mehrotra, Sudhir Chandra, Vijai Bahadur, R.K.Saxena, R.E.Sharma

JUDGMENT

N. N. Mithal, J.

1. This revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act was finally disposed of by this court on 28- 8-1986. Since reported in 1986 AWC 1214. The court had set aside the findings recorded by the trial court and after pointing out the errors which the trial court had committed, gave certain directions to the trial court and remanded the matter to it for deciding the suit afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. The tenant being aggrieved by the order passed by this court approached the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition by him was allowed and the matter was remanded to this court with a direction that the High Court itself should decide the questions passed by it instead of remanding the matter to the trial court. THIS is how the matter has come up again before this court for disposing of the revision.

2. Sri S. P. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant landlady and SRI Sudhir Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the tenant opposite party both have been quite fair in stating that the observations made by this court on the points raised need not be reiterated and the court may, therefore, conf











































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