Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Rohit Patel – Appellant
Versus
Devkunwar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff must prove possession for a permanent injunction suit; failure to seek recovery of possession in absence of possession renders suit non-maintainable. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. scope of section 100 cpc restricts high court from re-appreciating facts in second appeal unless there is perversity or a substantial question of law. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
NAFR
Judgment on Board
1. The plaintiff/appellant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 12.02.2016 passed by the Learned District Judge, Mahasamund, C.G. in Civil Appeal No. 118-A/2014 (Rohit Patel Vs. Smt. Devkumar & Anr.) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2010 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 34-A/2009 (Rohit Patel Vs. Smt. Devkumar & Anr.) whereby the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.
2. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defend
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
