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

2003 Supreme(MP) 349

N.K.JAIN, A.M.SAPRE, S.L.KOCHAR
RATANLAL – Appellant
Versus
BARDI BAI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.G.UPADHYAY, T.N.SINGH

N. K. JAIN, J.

( 1 ) IT is aptly said "a Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he could and should iron out the creases". These famous words of Lord Denning are quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in P. Nalla Thampy v. B. L. Shanker, AIR 1984 SC 135. We are also here required to iron out some such creases which have surfaced on account of difference of opinion between two Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench of this Court while deciding this Review Petition arising from the Order dated 28-6-2000 passed by Single Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No. 497/1998.

( 2 ) LATE Kanhaiyalal who has since died and now represented by the respondents, filed a suit No. 66-A/1990 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Khilchipur, against the present applicant Ratanlal and others for declaration and injunction in respect of certain agricultural lands. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 25-6-1992 and the appeal (No. 38-A/1997) filed by the defendants including the present applicant was also dismissed by Ist Additional District Judge, Rajgarh, vide his judgment and decree dated 21-7-1998. Out of the unsuccessful defendants, only the present applicant - def














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