Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Partly decreed in Vijay Kumar vs M/S.Ram Lal And Sons on 30 June, 2017Matching Fragments
This appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2002, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Court No.5, Shimla, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been partly decreed.
2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff), filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction as well Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes.
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is not within limitation? OPD.
.
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit due to his acts, conducts, acquisence etc.? OPD.
6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?
OPD.
7. Relief."
5. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2002 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendant from affixing any board on the roof of the tenanted premises of the plaintiff i.e. the Top Floor of the building 70, The Mall, Shimla, H.P.
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff was partly decreed, appellant-defendant filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `CPC') assailing therein judgment and decree dated 29.04.2002 passed by learned Sub Judge in the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, who, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.09.2006, dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Learned first appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal, also granted relief of mandatory injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. In the aforesaid background, the present appellant-defendant filed this Regular Second Appeal before this Court, details whereof have already .
19. Now, this Court would proceed whether application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC having been filed by the appellant can be allowed at this stage and whether judgments having been passed by the learned Courts below, which are sought to be adduced as additional evidence, have direct bearing on the findings returned by the trial Court, which is subject matter of the present case.
20. Learned first appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.09.2006, modified the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff was partly decreed to the effect that the defendant is restrained from affixing any board on the roof of the tenanted premises of the plaintiff i.e. Top Floor of the building No. 70, The .