Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Ralli And Ors. vs Smt. Satinderjit Kaur on 29 September, 1997

Dalip Singh vs Mehar Singh And Ors. on 18 August, 1998

14. The judgments cited by the learned counsel in Ishar Dass v. Kanwar Bhan, (1991-2)100 P.L.R. 578, Surjit Kaur v. Anil Kumar, (1997-3)117 P.L.R. 636 and Smt. Ralli v. Satinderjit Kaur, (1998-1)119 P.L.R. 666 are not applicable to the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. In the said cases, it had been proved on facts that the causes of action in the previous suit and the subsequent suit were identical.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Satpal Garg Etc vs Mohit Etc on 11 January, 2016

[52]. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that bar under order 2 Rule 2 CPC can be established on the MOHMED ATIK 2016.01.25 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA No.3796 of 2011 (O&M) 26 basis of judgment given in the previous suit and not unnecessarily on production of pleadings. Two conditions are to be satisfied. Firstly that the earlier suit and the second suit must arise from same cause of action. Secondly two suits must be between the parties. Learned counsel relied upon Smt. Ralli and others vs. Smt. Satinderjit Kaur, 1998(1) PLR 666. [53]. Again learned counsel for the appellants contended that property stood transferred in favour of defendants No.4 to 6 by HUDA and there cannot be any lis pendens. Prior to the filing of the present suit and even in the suit for permanent injunction they were not impleaded as party, though made party subsequently in a suit for permanent injunction as well as in a suit for specific performance. The Court has to be satisfied in terms of Section 16(c) of Act that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract or not? Admittedly no notice was given by the plaintiff to defendants No.1 to 3. On that premise, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgment and decree of the trial Court with reference to material on record.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar vs Ajit Singh on 5 March, 1999

12. Similarly, in the case of Tarsem Singh v. Sibu Ram, 1997(2) PLJ 268 : 1998(2) RCR(Civil) 222 (P&H) and also in the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Ralli and others v. Smt. Satinderjit Kaur, 1998(2) PLJ 305 : 1998(2) RCR(Civil) 114 (P&H), on similar facts, same view was expressed. There is no ground to take a different view. The cause of action, as referred to above, was available to the respondent. He did not choose to do so but omitted to take as a relief in the first suit. He could have done so. Therefore, Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code would bar the subsequent suit.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - V S Aggarwal - Full Document

Smt. Parkash Kumari vs Balwant Singh And Ors. on 27 January, 2005

In Bhagwan Kaur's case (supra), the judgment of the Apex Court in Sidramappa's A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1050 case (supra) was not noticed. As already seen, foundation in both the suits being the same and leave having not been sought from the Court to sue for such relief afterwards, suit for specific performance is clearly barred under Order 2 Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - H Gupta - Full Document

Darshan Kaur vs Pardeep Kumar on 13 September, 2012

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that relief of specific performance of the agreement qua 28 kanals land out of the suit land was available to the plaintiff when he filed suit for injunction only and therefore, amendment of plaint to claim the said relief is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgments in Tarsem Singh versus Sibu Ram, 1998(1) PLR 574; Smt. Ralli versus Smt. Satinderjit Kaur, 1998(1) PLR 666; Veena Goyal and Anr. Versus Raj Kumar Mittal, 2008(3) Civil Court Cases 200 and Kamal Kishore Saboo versus Nawabzada Humayun Kamal Hassan Khan, 2001(3) Civil Court Cases 132. It was also argued that proposed Civil Revision No. 1649 of 2008 -4- amendment of plaint would change nature of the suit and therefore, could not be allowed. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu veresus Sita Ram Saraugi and others, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 679.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - L N Mittal - Full Document

Bhaiya Ram And Anr. vs Rajesh Kumar And Anr. on 12 March, 2007

4. The sole argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the suit for specific performance has been filed after two years of the date fixed for the execution of the sale. Therefore, the plaintiff are not entitled to decree for specific performance. Reliance is placed on K.S. Vidyanadam and Ors. v. Vairavan ; Ram Niwas Gupta v. Mumtaz Hasan and Ors. 2002(1) P.L.J. 175 and Smt. Ralli and Ors. v. Smt. Satinderjit Kaur (1998-1) 118 P.L.R. 666.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - H Gupta - Full Document
1