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

2007 Supreme(UK) 101

RAJESH TANDON
MURLI SINGH – Appellant
Versus
RAM SINGH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.D.Bahuguna, Pankaj Purohit

( 1 ) HEARD Sri C. D. Bahuguna counsel for the revisionists and Sri Panka purohit, counsel for the respondents/opposite parties.

( 2 ) BY the present civil revisions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the revisionists have prayed for setting aside the order dated 11th May, 2005 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, chamoli, Gopeshwar, passed in Execution case No. 21 of 2004 whereby the Judge small Cause Court has allowed the objections filed by the opposite parties under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the suit for rent and ejectment was filed by late Sri Murli Dhar, father of the revisionists in the year, 1987. The suit was contested by the defendant no. 1 and was decreed on 16-3-1991.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER a revision was preferred being Revision No. 493 of 2001 by Sri Dalip singh and Sri Ram Singh, which was dismissed on 16th August, 2004. Following order was passed:

"counsel for the applicant has prayed some time to vacate the premises. The time to vacate the premises is granted to the applicant to vacate the premises by 31-12-2004 subject to the undertaking furnished by the applicant within a period of one month before the J. S. C.


























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