FAKHR-UL-ISLAM Vs. ABDUL NAIM
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This revision petition challenges the orders dated 27.3.99 and 7.8.99 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi.
(2.) Petitioner was defendant no.2, respondent no.1 was plaintiff, respondent no.2 was defendant no.1 in the original suit. Respondents nos. 3 to 9 are the legal heirs of defendant no.3 in the original suit. I shall be referring to the parties as plaintiff and defendant respectively.
(3.) Vide impugned order dated 27.3.99, suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 6, Specific Relief Act, 1877 was decreed and plaintiff was held entitled to the possession of suit property and the printing press lying therein. Vide order dated 7.8.99, noting that in the plaint relief prayed for was limited to the extent of possession of suit property, earlier order dated 27.3.99 was modified and plaintiff was held entitled to the possession of only suit property.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.