Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Bipin Chander Negi, J
Madhu Bala – Appellant
Versus
Kumari Megha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction limitations under article 227. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. court's jurisdiction limits interference unless serious legal errors or injustice surface. (Para 3) |
| 3. the balance of convenience favors defendants upholding their long-term occupancy rights. (Para 5) |
| 4. plaintiff’s challenge to unauthorized construction over joint property. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. principles governing injunctions and equitable relief. (Para 9 , 13) |
| 6. the importance of established rights among co-owners. (Para 11) |
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
The present petition has been preferred by the pethitioner, laying challenge to impugned order dated 04.07.2023, passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur district at Nahan, in Civil Misc. Appeal No 4-CMA/14 of 2023 reversing Order dated 03.05.2023 passed by Learned Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur in CMA No. 188/6 of 2023 passed in Civil Suit No 25/1 of 2023 on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to mention that the present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
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
