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

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
MALATI SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
RAJ KUMAR YADAV – Respondent


Advocates:
['KIRAN KUMAR ARORA', '', 'RAM AKBAL UPADHYAY', 'PRAKHAR TANDON']

Reserved on:

20.9.2022

Delivered on: 09.11.2022

Court No. - 18

AFR”

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2691 of 2020

Petitioner :- Malati Sharma

Respondent :- Raj Kumar Yadav

Counsel for Petitioner :- Kiran Kumar Arora,Ram Akbal Upadhyay

Counsel for Respondent :- Prakhar Tandon

Connected with

Case :- S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 234 of 2014

Revisionist :- Malti Sharma

Opposite Party :- Raj Kumar Yadav

Counsel for Revisionist :- S.K.Upadhyay,Kiran Kumar Arora,R.A.

Upadhayay

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Pankaj Agarwal,Prakhar Tandon

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

Heard Sri K.K.Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

Both the matters arise out of same suit, therefore, are being

heard and decided together by this common judgment.

The petitioner before this Court is tenant respondent in Small

Causes Suit No. 193 of 2012, which came to be decreed dated

24.7.2019 for arrears of rent and ejectment.

The petitioner challenged the order of the Judge Small Causes

before the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 by instituting Small

Causes Revision being No. 60 of 2019 which also came to be

dismiss

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