Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.25 seconds)

Nirmal Singh vs Arwinder Singh on 16 May, 2018

6. On the other hand, appellant Nirmal Singh himself appeared into the witness box as DW1 and reiterated his stand taken in his written statement by furnishing his affidavit Ex.DW1/A and also proved documents Ex. D1 to Ex.D5. Indu Bala, Senior Assistant Accounts, PUDA, while appearing into the witness box as DW2 deposed that she has brought the record relating to the allotment of residential plot bearing no.1049/II, Phase II, Jalandhar. She testified that vide letter no. 6658 dated 31.10.1986, the plot was allotted in favour of Nirmal Singh, resident of 1760, Sector 23, Chandigarh. As per the record, all installments and additional price of the plot have also been deposited by the appellant. She proved copies of the Demand and Collection Register as Ex. DW2/A. Shri Hardeep Singh, Clerk, PUDA, Jalandhar, while appearing in the witness box as DW3 deposed that as per the record, plot no.1049, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar was 4 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 20-05-2018 20:45:54 ::: Regular Second Appeal No.3644 of 2011 (O&M) 5 allotted to Nirmal Singh on 31.10.1986. He proved the copy of allotment letter as Ex.DW3/A, letter dated 1.12.1986 as Ex.DW3/B, whereby he deposited installments. He further proved applications Ex.DW3/C to Ex.DW3/E and Ex.DW3/F to Ex.DW3/L vide which the appellant deposited the installments. Shri Pankaj Malhotra, Clerk, Judicial Record Room, Jalandhar, stepped into the witness box as DW4 and brought the judicial file relating to Civil Suit No.587 of 1990 titled as Sant Parkash Singh versus Nirmal Singh decided by the court of Shri D.R.Arora, the then Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar. He also brought receipts Ex.DW4/1 to Ex.DW4/11, issued by PUDA in the name of Nirmal Singh.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R K Jain - Full Document

Smt. Shanti Devi And Others vs Vinay Verma on 11 September, 2009

In support Civil Revision No. 6385 of 2008 (O&M) -2- of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gautam Sarup Vs. Leela Jetly and others, 2008(1) RCR 487 and the judgment of this Court in Sant Prakash Singh Vs. Nirmal Singh, 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 212, wherein this Court was pleased to lay down, that admission made cannot be allowed to be withdrawn unless it is explained as to how the admission made was incorrect.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1