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

2018 Supreme(MP) 628

NANDITA DUBEY
Chhoti Bai – Appellant
Versus
Sheikh Jafar – Respondent


Advocates:
Awadhesh Kukar Gupta for petitioner; Vibhay Solanki for respondents No. 1 and 2.

ORDER

1. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision has been filed aggrieved by the Order dated 16.2.2016 (Annexure A-5) passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Junnardev in Execution Civil Suit No. 455-A/1994 whereby the Executing Court below has allowed the application of non-applicants No. 1 to 3 filed under section 151 of CPC for fresh demarcation.

3. The case in brief is that the petitioner is a decree holder. He had earlier filed a suit for possession and for permanent injunction against the respondents. The trial Court has passed the decree on 20.1.2000 on following terms :

^^¼1½ oknh dks Áfroknh fookfnr Hkwfe tks [kŒuaŒ 71 esa fLFkr gS ftlds vkXus; fn'kk okyh vke lM++d ls yxh gqbZ gS 11 xq.kk 12 ¾ 132 oxZQhV voS/k :i ls fd, x;s vfrØe.k dks rksM+dj fu.kZ; fnukad ls nks ekg ds vanj fjDrkf/kiR; Ánku djsxkA

¼2½ oknh dh fookfnr [kŒuaŒ 71 dh jdck 150 gsŒ Hkwfe ij Áfroknhx.k dks voS/k :i ls dCts esa n[kyvankth nsus ls LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk }kjk fu"ksf/kr fd;k x;kA

¼3½ ÁŒihŒ 2] ihŒ 3 dh lhekadu fjiksVZ vkSj uD'kk fMØzh dk Hkkx ekuk tk,xk vkSj bUgha nLrkostksa ds vuqlkj buesa nf'kZr Hkwfe dk [kkyh dCtk oknh dks Áfroknh Ánku djsxkA

¼4½ okn dk laiw.kZ O;;] oknh










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