TARAN DASS CHELA JAMNA DASS CHELA CHARAN versus SURENDER JAIN & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Taran Dass Chela Jamna Dass Chela Charan v. Surender Jain & Ors - RSA-4670-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 1067 (22 February 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO.4670 of 2003

DATE OF DECISION:March 2, 2006

Taran Dass Chela Jamna Dass Chela Charan Dass ....Appellant

VERSUS

Surender Jain and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri Suvineet Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri B.R.Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

A perusal of the judgments passed by the two Courts below shows that defendant No.1 Surender Jain was found to be in unauthorised possession of the suit land and his plea of adverse possession has been rejected. However, the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been rejected on the technical grounds.

In view of the aforesaid fact, Shri Suvineet Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant states that the suit filed by the plaintiffs be permitted to be withdrawn on account of aforesaid technical defect with a liberty to file a fresh suit seeking possession of the suit land from the defendants.

This limited prayer of the plaintiffs is not opposed by Shri B.R.Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants.

In view of the aforesaid agreement between the learned counsel for the parties, the main suit filed by the plaintiffs is permitted

to be withdrawn with a liberty to them to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action by pleading better facts. If any such suit is filed by the plaintiffs, then the defendants shall be at liberty to raise all such pleas which are available to them in accordance with law. In a subsequent suit filed by the plaintiffs, any findings recorded by the two Courts below for and against the plaintiffs or the defendants shall not be taken into consideration.

Since the main suit filed by the plaintiffs has been permitted to be withdrawn, the present appeal has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.

March 02, 2006 (Viney Mittal)

KD Judge

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.