Abdul Majid And Ors vs Lala Jagan Nath Aggarwal-Huf on 19 November, 2014
C.C. 222; and Amritsar Diocesen Trust Association (Regd.) Amritsar
Vs. Amritsar Diocesen Trust Association, Amritsar 1998(4) R.C.R. (Civil)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)Documents citing
Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association ... vs Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association ... on 7 July, 1998
Sukhmeet Kaur And Anr vs Harjinder Singh And Ors on 21 April, 2022
made by this Court in Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association (Regd.),
Amritsar (supra), Nirmala Sharma and Others (supra) and Charanjit
Singh (supra), will also be of no help to plaintiffs in the light of the
above-quoted observations made by the Apex Court in Acqua Borewell
Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
Shish Ram And Anr vs Laxmi Narain And Ors on 30 October, 2014
Counsel for the petitioners, citing Ramesh Hirachand
Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, (1992)
2 SCC 524 (SC), Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association (Regd.), Amritsar v.
Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association, Amritsar, 1998(4) RCR (Civil) 154
(P&H) and Sewa Singh v. Piara Singh and another, 2014(3) Law Herald
2073 (P&H), states that since defendant No.9 is a necessary party, he has to
be transposed as a contesting defendant.
Dalip Kumar And Anr vs Pardeep Kumar And Anr on 5 October, 2016
[7]. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently
submitted that the applicant/respondent No.2 is not a necessary
party in a suit for injunction because the plaintiff/respondent
No.1 does not feel any apprehension against him. Learned
counsel relied upon Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association
(Regd.) Amritsar vs. Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association,
Amritsar, 1998(4) RCR (Civil) 154 to contend that the scope of
suit for permanent injunction is restricted only to the possession.
No question of title can be decided in simpliciter suit for
permanent injunction.
Chajju Ram And Others vs Kitab Singh And Another on 17 September, 2009
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that
the suit of the plaintiffs was simpliciter suit for injunction, therefore, the
question of ownership was not required to be examined, in such suit.
Therefore, the findings thereon are not sustainable, when the plaintiffs
have proved their possession. Since, the plaintiffs are admittedly in
possession, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction against
forcible dispossession from the defendants. He relies upon a judgment of
this Court in Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association (Regd.), Amritsar
Vs. Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association, Amritsar 1998(3) PLR 589.
Mohan Shyam And Others vs Munshidhar And Others on 15 March, 2010
In support of this
contention reliance has been placed on three judgments of this Court namely
Rampat versus Shri Mandir Thakur Dwara at Suhra and ors.,1987 PLJ
654, Amar Singh versus Gram Panchayat, Sabun, 1992 PLJ 69 and
Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association (Regd.), Amritsar versus
Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association, Amritsar, 1998(3) PLR 589. In
Civil Revision No. 854 of 2010 -3-
all these cases, applicant wanted to be impleaded as party to suit for
injunction claiming title in the suit property. The applicant was held to be
not proper or necessary party to the suit. All these three judgments fully
apply to the facts of the instant case and therefore, respondent no. 9 cannot
be said to be proper or necessary party to the suit for injunction filed by the
petitioners. No judgment to the contrary has been cited by learned counsel
for respondent no. 9. Even otherwise, plaintiffs are the masters of the suit.
The plaintiffs are not claiming any relief against respondent no. 9. For this
reason as well, respondent no. 9 cannot be said to be proper or necessary
party to the suit. If respondent no. 9 claims any right, title or interest in the
suit property, he would be at liberty to stake his claim by filing separate suit.
Obviously decree that may be passed in the instant suit would not be
binding on respondent no. 9 who is not party to the suit.
1