Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sandeep Moudgil, J
Zamil – Appellant
Versus
Kitabudin – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background involving suit for injunction and dismissal of appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. appellants' contentions regarding the maintainability of the appeal. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. principles of impleadment and criteria for necessary parties. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. protection of settled possession against unlawful dispossession. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. final order dismissing the appeal. (Para 30 , 31) |
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J
1. The present Regular Second Appeal (RSA) has been preferred by the defendant–appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed as not maintainable. The appellants have also assailed the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, by which the suit filed by the plaintiff–respondents was decreed in their favor.
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that the plaintiff–respondents instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant–appellants. It was averred that the father of plaintiff No. 4, and thereafter the plaintiffs themselves, had
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
