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

2014 Supreme(All) 528

SUDHIR AGARWAL
NAZAR MOHAMMAD – Appellant
Versus
PUSHPA DEVI – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Chandan Kumar and Vishnu Gupta for the Petitioners; S.C., P.K. Jain and Swapnil Kumar for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Swapnil Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 24.11.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Etah, allowing SCC Revision No. 13 of 2003 and while setting aside Trial Court’s judgment dated 29.8.2005 passed in SCC Suit No. 34 of 1993, it has directed the Trial Court to decide suit on merits.

3. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 29.8.2005 has returned plaint by holding that it is a title dispute and, therefore, under Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1887”), the plaint is to be returned to plaintiff so as to be lodged in regular Court but this order has been set aside by Revisional Court holding that there was no such dispute of title which would have deprived jurisdiction of Small Cause Court from deciding matter and the Small Cause Court should have proceeded with the matter on merits to decide the same.

4. The dispute relates to House No. 148/1 and 148/2, situate at Mohalla Govind Das, Kasba Aliganj, Pargana Azam Nagar, Tehsil Aliganj,
















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