Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Kuldeep Kumar Sharma vs Pradeep Kumar Sharma on 12 December, 2014

Bench: Dipak Misra, Uday Umesh Lalit

  ITEM NO.49                              COURT NO.6                 SECTION X

                               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

  Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)                  No(s).   30757/2014

  (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10/09/2014
  in WP No. 2258/2012 passed by the High Court Of Uttarakhand At
  Nainital)

  KULDEEP KUMAR SHARMA                                                Petitioner(s)

                                                 VERSUS

  PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS                                        Respondent(s)

  (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and permission to
  submit additional document(s))


  Date : 12/12/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.


  CORAM :                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT


  For Petitioner(s)                Mr.   Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv.
                                   Mr.   Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
                                   Mr.   Deepak Goel,Adv.
                                   Mr.   Bhagwan Singh, Adv.


  For Respondent(s)                Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Adv.
                                   Mr. Iftekhar Ahmad, Adv.
                                   Mr. P. Narasimhan,Adv.



                          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                             O R D E R

It is submitted by Mr. Narender Hooda, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that though the execution proceeding could not Signature Not Verified have included all the three schedules, namely, 'A', 'B', and 'C'.

Yet the execution proceeded in respect all the schedules. Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2014.12.16 18:23:30 IST Alternatively, it is submitted whether there was delivery of Reason:

possession of 'A' to 'C' schedule properties or not. The respondents have demolished the 'A' schedule property on the basis of the order passed in the execution proceedings. An affidavit to  2 that effect has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has disputed the same.

We are inclined to think, an opportunity should be granted to the respondent to file an affidavit in oppugnation within a period of four weeks.' Let the matter be listed in the second week of January 2015.

    (Gulshan Kumar Arora)                     (H.S. Parasher)
        Court Master                            Court Master