SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
RAJMAL RAJPUT – Appellant
Versus
SIDHU RAM – Respondent


J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff/respondent herein (For short “plaintiff”)

instituted a suit bearing No. 69/10 of 2000, before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (1) Shimla, H.P. In the afore suit, he claimed the making of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the instance of the defendant/petitioner herein (for short “defendant”), and, vis-à-vis, Khasra Nos. 1152/500, 1154/500, 1159/532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 539, 540, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547 and 537 kitas 14 total measuring 537.45 sq. meters for short (“the suit khasra numbers”).

2. The plaintiff’s suit became decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried thereagainst by the aggrieved defendant, before the learned first appellate Court, the latter Court made a verdict of dismissal, upon, the afore Civil Appeal No. 93-S/13 of 2004, and, obviously affirmed the judgment and decree as became accorded, vis-à-vis, the plaintiff hence by the learned trial Court, however, with a modification as becomes extracted hereinafter:-

“However, it is slightly modified, instead of granting injunction in respect to entire land of the defendant, it is hereby ordered that the defendant will not cause any obstruction to the fl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top