restitution of excessive area wrongly delivered to
the decree-holder. The respondent decree-holder contested
the application and one of the ground raised was that ... restitution of excessive area wrongly
delivered to the decree-holder. The respondent-decree-holder
contested the above application. Apart from the other
objections
file an
application seeking a final decree along the lines of preliminary decree.
The application for final decree came to be filed ultimately along with ... application for condonation of delay in filing an application for
final decree was contested by the respondent on the ground that it was barred
file an
application seeking a final decree along the lines of preliminary decree.
The application for final decree came to be filed ultimately along with ... application for condonation of delay in filing an application for
final decree was contested by the respondent on the ground that it was barred
only have filed the objection in the final
decree proceeding and have assailed the final decree in appeal in the court below.
13. As already ... final decree prepared in
pursuance to the earlier preliminary decree. It has been submitted on behalf of the
contesting respondents that the final decree would
contest the suit. No other defendants also contested the same. The suit was decreed on 17.7.75 by the trial court on contest against the defendant ... present petitioner the same dispute was raised and the OP decree holder contested the same on the ground that frivolous objections were being raised
agricultural plots and some
movables. After contest the suit was decreed on 25.2.1964 directing a
preliminary decree for partition be drawn in regard
decree or where the summons or notices were not duly served, when the applicant had the knowledge of the decree. The High Court of Bombay ... parte decree on the basis of deemed admissions on the part of defendant, but not to a decree passed on contest in the presence
defendant submitted to the decree by filing a memo.
4. The 2nd defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and also additional written statement
that the Receiver need not contest the suit as it is the personal liability of Mohammad Sheriff. The decree ... contest the same in view of the order of the High Court dated 23rd September, 1955.
7. In the final decree which was passed
spite of the contest made by the respondents 2 and 3, a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 27.1.1977. Since
