Back
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J
Rajinder Singh Ajmani – Appellant
Versus
Fulkunwar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for specific performance must not be barred by res judicata. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. contract details and transaction history of the plaintiff with defendants. (Para 2 , 3 , 9) |
| 3. lok adalat's jurisdiction is limited to summary resolutions and not adjudicating titles. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. res judicata principles require a properly adjudicated and final judgment. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. refund of court fees is applicable upon case remand to lower court. (Para 18 , 21) |
1. This Appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.20 - A / 2012 whereby, the trial Court has dismissed the claim holding it to be barred by the principles of res judicata under S.11 of the CPC. The parties to this Appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Court below.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff - Rajinder Singh Ajmani instituted a suit claiming specific performance of contract with regard to the property in question bearing Nazul Sheet No.41 Plot No.86/1 and 2.40 acres s
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
