Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.38 seconds)Section 10 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Chandra Mohan Prasad & Ors vs Jagdish Chandra Prasad & Ors on 1 July, 2008
7. Since defendants failed to deliver the possession of
suit land and land of proforma defendants after passing of
aforesaid judgments and decrees by civil Courts in the case,
referred to above, plaintiffs filed present suit praying therein for
decree of possession of suit land denoted by Khasra Nos. 26/1
(0-6 Bigha), No. 27/1 (1-12 Bigha), 33/3 (0-9 Bigha) and No.
25 (1-5 Bigha) situated in Mauja Uttamwala Badaban, Tehsil
Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. Learned trial
Court, vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2009, decreed the
suit having been fled by the plaintiffs and held them entitled to
possession of suit land comprising of Khasra No. 25(1-6 Bigha),
No. 26/1 (0-6 Bigha), No. 27/1 (1-12 Bigha) and No. 33/3 (0-9
Bigha), in total 3-13 Bigha, situate in Mauza Uttamwala
::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2017 22:56:11 :::HCHP
10
Badaban, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, as
depicted in Naksha 'J' attached to instrument of partition (Ext.
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Laxmidevamma & Ors vs Ranganath & Ors on 20 January, 2015
deal with the specific objection raised by the learned counsel
representing the respondents with regard to maintainability and
jurisdiction of this Court, while examining correctness of the
concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. Mr.
Ravinder Thakur, learned Advocate, while inviting the attention
of this Court to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others,
(2015)4 SCC 264, contended that the present appeal deserves
to be dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
judgment has held as under:
M/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004
35. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Atma
Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1
SCC 705, have held that mere filing of an appeal does not
operate as stay on the decree or order appealed against nor on
the proceedings in the Court below. Their lordships have held
as under: