Full Text
Translation output
1-2
% 21.01.2011
Present: Mr.Sandeep Sethi Sr. Advocate with Mr. Himal Akhtar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.C.L.Dhawan, Advocate for the respondent.
+CM No.645/2011 (for exemption) in R.S.A.No.6/2011
*
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM No.646/2011 (delav in refiling)
There is no substantial opposition. In view of the averments
^ made in the application, the delay ofone day in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed.
R.S.A.No.6/2011 & CM No.644/2011 (for stav)
This appeal has impugned the
% 21.01.2011
Present: Mr.Sandeep Sethi Sr. Advocate with Mr. Himal Akhtar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.C.L.Dhawan, Advocate for the respondent.
+CM No.645/2011 (for exemption) in R.S.A.No.6/2011
*
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM No.646/2011 (delav in refiling)
There is no substantial opposition. In view of the averments
^ made in the application, the delay ofone day in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed.
R.S.A.No.6/2011 & CM No.644/2011 (for stav)
This appeal has impugned the
JUDGMENT
and decree dated
07.9.2010 which had endorsed the finding of the trial whereby the suit of the plaintiff seeking a decree of possession on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter
^- referred to as 'the Code') PC had been decreed. The only dispute raised before this Court is about the service of the notice which
^ had purportedly been issued by the plaintiff to the defendant under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The contention before this Court is that in the written statement there was a categorical denial to the receipt of the said notice. A decree under Order 12
R.S.A.No.6/2011
2011:DHC:18305
V.
Rule 6 of the Code could not have followed.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is remanded back to the trial judge to decide the following issue:
Whether the plaintiff had served the notice dated 16.1.2010 upon the defendant? If so, its effect?
Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the defendant is a senior citizen. The trial judge will make endeavor to give his finding within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
With these directions, parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge, Karkardooma on the date already fixed i.e.
29.01.2011. The appeal is disposed of in the abo^^ terms.
$
V.
JANUARY 21, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J. R.S.A.No.6/2011
2011:DHC:18305
07.9.2010 which had endorsed the finding of the trial whereby the suit of the plaintiff seeking a decree of possession on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter
^- referred to as 'the Code') PC had been decreed. The only dispute raised before this Court is about the service of the notice which
^ had purportedly been issued by the plaintiff to the defendant under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The contention before this Court is that in the written statement there was a categorical denial to the receipt of the said notice. A decree under Order 12
R.S.A.No.6/2011
2011:DHC:18305
V.
Rule 6 of the Code could not have followed.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is remanded back to the trial judge to decide the following issue:
Whether the plaintiff had served the notice dated 16.1.2010 upon the defendant? If so, its effect?
Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the defendant is a senior citizen. The trial judge will make endeavor to give his finding within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
With these directions, parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge, Karkardooma on the date already fixed i.e.
29.01.2011. The appeal is disposed of in the abo^^ terms.
$
V.
JANUARY 21, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J. R.S.A.No.6/2011
2011:DHC:18305