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

2022 Supreme(MP) 378

DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
Barelal – Appellant
Versus
Deendayal – Respondent


Advocates:
R.S. Mehndiratta for appellant.

ORDER

1. Heard on I.A. No.11423/22, which is an application for leave to file second appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant Barelal submits that despite being necessary party to the civil suit No.1A/13 and civil appeal No.16-A/14, he was not made party to the lis and the respondents 1-6 by impleading the respondent 7/State as party, have got decreed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with regard to agriculture land Khasra no.239/1 area 1.226 Hectare situated in Village Guraiya, Tahsil and District Chhatarpur, from the first appellate Court, whereas civil suit no.1A/13 was dismissed by 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Chhatarpur.

3. By showing the order dated 17.7.2012 passed by Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in appeal No.219/A/6/2008-2009 (Deendayal and others vs. Barelal) and another order dated 18.9.2007 passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Chhatarpur and further by showing the judgment and decree dated 25.6.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Chhatarpur in civil suit No.25-A/13 (Barelal Luhar vs. Gokul Bajpai and others), learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant-Barelal was necessary party to the civil 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