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

2004 Supreme(All) 2497

ANJANI KUMAR
Karnal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Aditya Narayan Singh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.P. Sarraf.
For the Respondents: D.P. Shukla, S.P. Pandey, Anuj Kumar.

ORDER :

1. The Petitioners, who were opposite parties, aggrieved by an order passed by the revisional Court approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the revisional Court has allowed the revision filed by Respondent.

2. From the narration of fact in the writ petition, it reveals that the Petitioners had filed a suit being Suit No. 836 of 1991, which was decreed vide order dated 11th November, 1992. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent filed an application u/s 151 of the CPC for setting aside the decree passed in the suit, referred to above. The Petitioners filed their objection in the aforesaid application filed on behalf of Respondent. The trial Court rejected the application u/s 151 of the CPC filed by the Respondent vide its order dated 20th November, 1998. Thereafter the Respondent filed revision before the revisional Court. The revisional Court vide its order impugned in the present writ petition while allowing the revision has set aside the order passed by the trial Court and allowed the application filed by the Respondent setting aside the ex-parte decree passed in Suit No. 836 of 1991 in exercise of power u/s







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