Back
N.P. Singh, J.
Kamlesh Sharma (Smt.) v. Komal Chand Kesharwani
Civil Revision No. 767 of 1998 (J); Decided on 1.4.1998.*
flfoy Áfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 26 fu- 9 & fooknxzLr Hkwfe ifjykf{kr fd;k tkuk & bl Á;kstu ds fy, dfe‘uj fu;qDr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A
The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 17th Jan. 98 passed by the III Civil Judge, Class-I, Jabalpur in C.S. No. 110-A/95 rejecting her application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of commissioner for measurement of the suit land. The applicant-plaintiff filed the instant suit for injunction to restrain the non-applicant from interfering with the possession of the applicant over the land in dispute on the ground that the applicant had donated 2.50 acres of her land to Gram Panchayat, Dhanpuri for construction of community hall. But the non-applicant Sarpanch, instead of making construction over the said plot of land, is making construction over the remaining plot of land of the applicant-plaintiff. The applicant moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of commissioner for measurement of the land in dispute and to report on which portion of the land, the community hall is being constructed by the non-applicant Sarpanch. The applicant has alleged that construction of community hall is being carried out by the non-applicant not on the land donated for the purpose of Gram Panchayat, but on the other portion of the land belonging to the applicant. Therefore, appointment of the commissioner for measurement of the land was necessary for proper adjudication of the case. The impugned order rejecting the application for appointment of Revenue Officer as commissioner for indentification and measurement of the land therefore cannot be sustained. It is set aside.
Revision petition is accordingly allowed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
