Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.37 seconds)
Pinki Devi vs Parveen on 31 August, 2023 cites

Parveen Kumar Puri vs Ajay Rastogi And Anr on 27 September, 2018

12. Thereafter, the Court had observed that Defendant no. 1 had not appeared for more than a year and therefore, Defendant no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.01.2018. Thereafter, PW-2 was cross examined and discharged on 02.04.2018 and on the same day, PW-3 was examined, cross examined and discharged and the summoned record was exhibited as Ex. PW3/A. PW-4 was also a summoned witness and he was examined, cross examined and Suits no. 17285/16 and 17284/16 Parveen Kumar Vs. Anoop Rastogi and Anr. and Pinki Devi Vs. Parveen 11 discharged on 29.05.2018 and the record brought by him was exhibited as Ex. PW4/1 (OSR).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Pinki Rani Saini vs Parveen Kumar Saini And Anr on 19 July, 2022

12. Thereafter, the Court had observed that Defendant no. 1 had not appeared for more than a year and therefore, Defendant no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.01.2018. Thereafter, PW-2 was cross examined and discharged on 02.04.2018 and on the same day, PW-3 was examined, cross examined and discharged and the summoned record was exhibited as Ex. PW3/A. PW-4 was also a summoned witness and he was examined, cross examined and Suits no. 17285/16 and 17284/16 Parveen Kumar Vs. Anoop Rastogi and Anr. and Pinki Devi Vs. Parveen 11 discharged on 29.05.2018 and the record brought by him was exhibited as Ex. PW4/1 (OSR).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - R Bahri - Full Document

Suraj Prasad vs Smt. Vandana Pitariya on 29 November, 2021

The judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in 'Varsha Vs. Ghanshyam and Anr. (2021) 220 AIC 281' and judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in 'Suraj Prasad Vs. Vandana Pitaria (2nd Appeal 280 of 2018)', would not apply as in those cases, the Court had found that it was the case of the misdescription of properties and not a case where the whole Khasra number had been omitted to be mentioned in the Suits no. 17285/16 and 17284/16 Parveen Kumar Vs. Anoop Rastogi and Anr. and Pinki Devi Vs. Parveen 33 sale deed. Therefore, on facts, those judgments would not apply. I find that the Plaintiff has not been able to make out a case for the rectification of sale deed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Varsha vs Ghanshyam on 15 December, 2022

The judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in 'Varsha Vs. Ghanshyam and Anr. (2021) 220 AIC 281' and judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in 'Suraj Prasad Vs. Vandana Pitaria (2nd Appeal 280 of 2018)', would not apply as in those cases, the Court had found that it was the case of the misdescription of properties and not a case where the whole Khasra number had been omitted to be mentioned in the Suits no. 17285/16 and 17284/16 Parveen Kumar Vs. Anoop Rastogi and Anr. and Pinki Devi Vs. Parveen 33 sale deed. Therefore, on facts, those judgments would not apply. I find that the Plaintiff has not been able to make out a case for the rectification of sale deed.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next