PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL
Arun Pabuwal – Appellant
Versus
Carol J. Sen – Respondent
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.—As these two Civil Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India and two Civil Misc.Appeals filed under Setion 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 (l) of CPC involve common questions of law and facts, they with the consent of learned counsel for the parties were heard together and are being decided by this common order. Copy of the order may be placed in each of the files. Applicants-petitioners-Appellants by way of these petitions/appeals have assailed the order dated 20.5.2014 passed in each of the four suits (C.S.No.77/98, 78/98, 129/98 and 76/98, which also involve almost similar question of law and facts) whereby the learned trial Court i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur has dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by each of the petitioner/appellant.
2. Brief relevant facts leading to these petitions/appeals are that plaintiff-respondents filed aforesaid four different suits against defendant-respondents for cancellation of four different registered exchange-deeds all dated 28.7.1987 and for
Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. v. Farida Khatoon & Anr.
Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors P. Ltd. and Ors.
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University & Ors.
Khemchand Shankar Choudhary & Anr. v. Vishnu Hari Patil & Ors.
Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal & Ors.
Smt. Saila Bala Dassi v. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi & Anr.
Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.