Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.72 seconds)

Shri Sukh Charan Singh vs Smt. Mohinder Kaur on 11 January, 2024

19. That it has been further stated that, the plaintiff not knowing the complications and requirements of different provisions of law had earlier filed a suit bearing no. 56/1977 titled as 'Sukh Charan Singh and Ors. Vs. D.D.A.' seeking the relief of declaration and injunction. It has been further stated that, the said suit was dismissed by the Ld. Subordinate Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 23.09.1978. It has been further stated that, thereafter the plaintiff along with the defendant no. 7 to 10 acting on the bonafide belief that the suit was maintainable preferred an appeal in RCC No.68/78 in the Court of Ld. Addl. District Judge, Delhi. That, vide judgment dated 28.02.1980, the Ld. Appellate Court came to the conclusion that since the suit was only for seeking the relief of mandatory injunction and declaration i.e., without consequential reliefs and that, the other equal efficacious remedy in law was also available with the plaintiff. That, the Ld. Appellate Court by applying the principles of law as enshrined under Section 34 read with Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 came to the conclusion that the suit in that form was not maintainable as such directed for the rejection of the plaint but did not decide the matter on merits. It has been further stated in the plaint that, it is now open to the plaintiff to bring appropriate suit in accordance with law and the plaintiff relies for the same on the judgment of the Ld. Appellate Court to this effect. It has been further stated that, the suit cannot be said to be barred in manner under any provision of law.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jaswant Singh Chauhan & Ors vs Shri N Saravana Kumar on 12 December, 2025

4. Aggrieved thereof, as many as 26 appeals were filed under Section 9 of the PP Act before the Appellate Authority (Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi), challenging the eviction order dated 20.08.1991 passed by the Estate Officer. Out of the said 26 appeals, the appeal bearing P.P. ACT Case No. 371/95 titled "Sh. Chaina Ram v. DDA" was filed by Sh. Chaina Ram S/o Late Sh. Bhima (original allottee of the said agricultural land). The said 26 This is a digitally signed order.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Chander Bhan vs Delhi Development Authority on 16 July, 2024

4. Aggrieved thereof, as many as 26 appeals were filed under Section 9 of the PP Act before the Appellate Authority (Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi), challenging the eviction order dated 3 General Power of Attorney 4 PP Act 5 SCN Signature Not Verified W.P. (C) No. 4587/2024 Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 2 of 17 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.07.2024 17:58:22 20.08.1991 passed by the Estate Officer. Out of the said 26 appeals, the appeal bearing P.P. ACT Case No. 371/95 titled "Sh. Chaina Ram v. DDA" was filed by Sh. Chaina Ram S/o Late Sh. Bhima (original allottee of the said agricultural land). The said 26 appeals were allowed by the learned Appellate Authority vide a common judgment dated 18.11.1995 and the impugned eviction order dated 20.08.1991 stood quashed.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document
1