Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.22 seconds)

Kashmiri Lal Bhutani vs Arvind Kumar Adukia on 12 February, 2015

7. So far as the order which was passed by the learned trial court on 7.5.2013 directing restitution of possession to the respondent is concerned, that was also taken by way of an appeal being R.C.A. No.26/2014 before the first appellate court. The appellate court after examining the entire matter, passed a detailed order on 22.3.2014 upholding the order of restitution passed by the trial court by observing that in case possession of the suit premises is not restored to the respondent then conducting of trial in respect of his suit for possession R.S.A. No.223/2014 Page 5 of 9 become meaningless because the possession of the suit premises has not only been retrieved by the appellant, but also continues to be with him. While holding so, the learned first appellate court referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Binayak Swain vs. Ramesh Chand Panigarahi; AIR 1966 SC 948 and Mohan Lal Khemka vs. Harihar Prasad & Ors; 1 (1997) CLT 367 to support his reasoning.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V K Shali - Full Document

Kashmiri Lal Bhutani vs Arvind Kumar Adukia on 22 March, 2014

The Learned Trial court relying upon Binayak Swain (Supra) case and Mohan Lal Khemka Vs. Harihar Prasad & Ors. I (1997) CLT 367, came to the conclusion that the defendant was entitled to restoration of the possession of the suit property upon setting aside of the ex-parte decree dated 19/03/2001, rightfully observing that the plaintiff obtained the possession of the suit property by virtue of ex-parte decree dated 19/03/2001 which was subsequently set aside by order dated 24/11/2004, whereby the application under order 9 rule 13 of the CPC moved on behalf of the defendant was allowed and therefore, the plaintiff was obliged to restore the possession of the suit property to the defendant.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1