Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SHAKUNTALA versus SMT. SHOBHA & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Shakuntala v. Smt. Shobha & Anr - SAO-62-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 11617 (30 November 2006)

S.A.O No. 62 of 2004 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

***

S.A.O No. 62 of 2004

Date of decision : 30.11.2006.

Smt. Shakuntala ... Appellant

Versus

Smt. Shobha and another ... Respondents.

...

Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate

for the respondents.

...

VINOD K. SHARMA, J

The present appeal has been filed against an order 11.8.2004 passed by the learned lower Appellate Court remanding the case back to the trial Court for decision afresh after deciding the application moved for appointment of Local Commissioner.

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff-respondent had moved an application for appointment of Local Commissioner in which notice was given and reply was also filed by the petitioner herein. However, no decision was taken on the said application. The learned trial Court, while partly decreeing the suit, took note of the fact that application for appointment of Local Commissioner was moved and was not decided. In the subsequent part of the judgment, the learned trial Court rejected the contention raised by the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that the Local Commissioner was required to be appointed for determination of the matter. The learned Appellate Court took note of this fact and came to the S.A.O No. 62 of 2004 2

conclusion that the observation made by the trial Court cannot be said to be a decision on the merits of the application and, therefore, the application was deemed to be pending. Thereafter, relying upon the judgments in Gamchu versus Sohan Lal and others, 1996 PLJ 608, Shadi Lal and others versus Municipal Committee, Rewari, 1994 (1) PLR 633 and Jagir Kaur and another versus Nirmal Singh and another, 1993 (2) PLR 374, the learned Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the decree was required to be set aside and case remanded back to the trial Court for want of decision on the application which remained undecided.

There is no illegality in the impugned order which may call for interference in this appeal. Dismissed.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on January 15, 2007.

( VINOD K. SHARMA )

JUDGE

November 30, 2006

RS

S.A.O No. 62 of 2004 3


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.