Full Text
Translation output
A-45
% 13.07.2011
Present: Mr. M.L. Pahwa, Advocate for the petitioner.
+ CM No. 12496/2011 in CM(M) No. 783/2011
*
Exemption is allowed subject to undertaking of the petitioner that the certified copies of the annexures will be filed within four weeks from today. Application is disposed of.
CM(M) No. 783/2011
The order impugned before this Court is dated 02.04.2011 wherein an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the
'Code') seeking possession and mesne profits had been dismissed.
Attention has been drawn to the written statement of the defendant. In the written statement in para 5 it has categorically been stated that no notice had been received by the tenant dated
01.02.2010 as has been alleged by the plaintiff. There was a specific denial about the receipt of the notice. Since there is no unambiguous and unequivocal admission on the part of the defendants, the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code had. been rightly dismissed. Impugned order warrant/ no interference.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 13, 2011 a
2011:DHC:18923
% 13.07.2011
Present: Mr. M.L. Pahwa, Advocate for the petitioner.
+ CM No. 12496/2011 in CM(M) No. 783/2011
*
Exemption is allowed subject to undertaking of the petitioner that the certified copies of the annexures will be filed within four weeks from today. Application is disposed of.
CM(M) No. 783/2011
The order impugned before this Court is dated 02.04.2011 wherein an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the
'Code') seeking possession and mesne profits had been dismissed.
Attention has been drawn to the written statement of the defendant. In the written statement in para 5 it has categorically been stated that no notice had been received by the tenant dated
01.02.2010 as has been alleged by the plaintiff. There was a specific denial about the receipt of the notice. Since there is no unambiguous and unequivocal admission on the part of the defendants, the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code had. been rightly dismissed. Impugned order warrant/ no interference.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 13, 2011 a
2011:DHC:18923
JUDGMENT